Page 11 of 71 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 1051
  1. #151
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers

    Update: See related article "Companies Fleeing California For Utah Over Confiscatory Tax Rate" (HT: Juandos):

    "Computer software giant Adobe, computer game monster EA Games, and Internet auction king eBay are abandoning California to set up shop in Utah. Why? California’s horrid business climate and high taxes."
    Comments:

    At 9/29/2010 1:48 PM, NC said...
    But Liberal Democrats, Left and Team Obama view California as model of operational excellence, seeking to create heaven on earth. Any criticism results in the following questions:

    - Don't you care about the kids?
    - Don't you care about minorities?
    - Don't you care about the disabled?
    - Don't you care about the unemployed?

    California, like the University, has removed obligation from society and replaced it with rights. Very expensive.

    At 9/29/2010 1:59 PM, juandos said...
    California's loss is Utah's gain

    Just look at all the companies that pulled up stakes and split...

    At 9/29/2010 2:08 PM, Bill said...
    No problems here. Nothing to see. Keep moving.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #152
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,596

    Re: Let's talk California

    Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tiative_(2010)



  3. #153
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,171

    Re: Let's talk California

    now they're going to start sending in the garden nazi's to inspect your garden and make sure it's not an inch over 25 square feet.....


    i wish they'd just let people grow it outright. then i could get some good hemp clothing!
    Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not
    triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
    see the light,
    but rather because its opponents eventually die"
    Arthur Shopenhauer: "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
    First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is opposed. Third, it is regarded as self evident."
    Martin Niemöller:
    "When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;I was not a communist.
    When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out."

  4. #154
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In a House
    Posts
    968

    Re: Let's talk California

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Good, now maybe the blue states won't have to support the red states like they do now.
    Fox News watchers are less informed - The Proof

    I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #155
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Let's talk California

    Quote Originally Posted by liteman View Post
    Good, now maybe the blue states won't have to support the red states like they do now.
    I know that federal money disproportionately goes to red states but I wonder if that really counts all the medicaid, medicare, and defense spending. California gets a huge amount of procurement defense spending, not to mention all the money that flows into the communities surrounding the military bases.

    In any case, hard to imagine how you can paint businesses fleeing as a positive for CA.
    Brian

  6. #156
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    I'm not sure how any of his statement reconciles itself in regard to CA's woe's. We're boned here. Business and people with $$ are leaving in droves. The moonbattery coming from Sactown is further hobblin what businesses are left.

    Summing Up Big Green
    What does the future hold for the environmental activism movement? Look to California. (Part V of the Washington Examiner/PJM special report on the environmental movement.)


    The Washington Examiner is publishing a five-part special report in association with Pajamas Media on “Big Green”: the alliance of the Democratic Party, environmental groups, and activists in the progressive movement. It’s not just a band of flannel-shirted environmentalists any longer; it’s become a big-money, major player in Washington power politics and American elections.

    In the last installment, we consider what Big Green wants — with California as an example.

    It’s now almost 40 years since the Environmental Protection Agency was authorized, more than 40 years since the first Earth Day. Where do we stand?

    It would certainly be wrong to say that no good has come from the environmental movement. The Cuyahoga River no longer burns, and in fact it’s once again the center of beautiful vistas and parks. Lake Erie is recovering; steel mill towns like Pittsburgh and my own home town of Pueblo, Colorado, have been cleaned up dramatically — no more red rain or coke-oven clouds. Comedians no longer tell smog jokes about Los Angeles. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we found out that the real environmental crimes were being committed behind the Iron Curtain — but now there’s even progress there.

    So what are environmentalists to do when so many of their goals have been accomplished?

    Why, redouble their efforts, of course.

    Today, in the final installment of its series on Big Green, the Washington Examiner considers what effect the current environmental movement is having on California, on the theory that California today is the whole U.S. in ten years.

    Oddly, there’s been very little recognition of the gains that have been made. Instead, there seems always to be another crisis, another endangered species or wetland at risk or area that should be established as a wilderness. With the Department of the Interior, and the EPA’s support along with the state government’s cooperation, California has been at forefront of environmental regulation.

    It isn’t working out as well as the people of California might have hoped.

    The most notorious example has been the restriction of water supplies to the San Joaquin Valley; thanks to the current drought, and a small population of endangered fish, water for agricultural purposes has been more and more limited. For the last several years, many farmers have been effectively unable to put in a crop. The San Joaquin Valley is, indeed, returning to its “natural” pre-irrigation state.

    Elsewhere in California, other environmental crusades are bearing fruit. There is general agreement on a “goal” of delivering 33 percent of California’s power from “renewable” sources, like solar and wind energy, by 2020. That’s ten years, which sounds like plenty of time — until you reflect that it often takes 20 years to move a new power generation project through the regulatory process.

    It’s not so clear where the renewable energy would come from, either — not since Senator Dianne Feinstein announced her intention to introduce legislation to restrict solar power projects from being placed in the Mojave Desert.

    In fact, the legislation won’t even be needed. By simply putting the project planners on notice, Feinstein has driven many of them out. As was reported last December in the New York Times:

    “When we attended the onsite desert meeting with Senator Feinstein, it was clear she was very serious about this,” said Gary Palo, vice president for development with Cogentrix Energy, a solar developer owned by Goldman Sachs. “It would make no sense for us politically or practically to go forward with those projects.”
    The fact is that solar and wind projects are, at best, on the very edge of being economically feasible under perfect conditions. Add regulatory uncertainty and a multiyear legislative fight — think about the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada, peremptorily closed by the Obama administration after years of studies and billions of dollars invested — and there simply is no economic reason for any company to get involved.

    But this presents a dilemma. If California is to supply 33 percent of its power through wind and solar, but wind and solar plants can’t be built, where will the power come from?

    This is the problem that the environmental movement now has to face: are there projects, plans, methods of providing energy and raw materials that are acceptable?

    To some environmentalists, there are not. The final reduction to absurdity of this is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which proposes, apparently seriously, that humanity should allow itself to die out. Les U. Knight, a spokesman for the movement, said that “…as long as there is one breeding pair of humans, there’s too great a threat to the biosphere.”

    Clearly, most environmentalists won’t go that far. There are plenty of children in attendance with their parents at environmental rallies. But it is the limiting case of a general assumption among the environmental movement: that any development — any noticeable sign of human habitation — is “unnatural” — especially when it’s visible from someone’s condominium.

    As long as that assumption continues, there will be plenty of people in the environmental activism industry willing to grab money and power under the guise of environmentalism.

    Charlie Martin writes on science and technology for Pajamas Media.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #157
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,596

    Re: Let's talk California

    Feds Oppose Calif. Prop 19 to Legalize Marijuana

    Published October 16, 2010 | Associated Press


    SAN FRANCISCO-- The U.S. government will "vigorously enforce" federal laws against marijuana even if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot, Attorney General Eric Holder says.

    Holder's warning, contained in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs, was his most direct statement yet against Proposition 19, a ballot measure which would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in the most populous U.S. state. It sets up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.
    The ex-Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Prop 19 passes.

    more:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/16...est=latestnews

    Oh noes!

    Now the Obama administration is trying to pissoff California pot smokers.

  8. #158
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    This AG is as full of sh*t as the rest of the administration. Unions are already trying to get their mitts into the action. Let's wait and see what really happens if it passes. My bet.. they sit on their hands.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #159
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    The rest of the country needs to look to CA for it's future... it's dismal.. apocalyptic future at the hands of (D)'s...

    California Pension Promises May Top Taxes by Fivefold, Milken Study Finds

    California, which has the largest U.S. public-pension fund, faces liabilities that may exceed its annual state-tax revenue fivefold within two years unless lawmakers rein in benefits, according to a study.

    To keep their promises to retirees, the California Public Employees Retirement System, the biggest plan, the California State Teachers Retirement System, the second-largest, and the University of California Retirement System may have combined liabilities of more than 5.5 times the state’s annual tax revenue by fiscal 2012, according to the study released today by the Milken Institute. Levies are forecast to reach about $89 billion in the year that began July 1.

    Debts to government retirees including those in California, the biggest state by population, have grown into a national crisis as pension plans strive to meet obligations to more than 19 million active and retired firefighters, police officers, teachers and other state workers. Fewer than half the plans had assets to cover 80 percent of promised benefits in fiscal 2009, according to data compiled for last month’s Cities and Debt Briefing hosted by Bloomberg Link.

    “California simply lacks the fiscal capacity to guarantee public-pension payments, particularly given the wave of state employees set to retire” in future years, said researchers Perry Wong and I-Ling Shen in the Milken report. “Structural shifts, coupled with the financial design and the accounting practices of state pension funds, all point to the fact that reform is imperative.”

    Driven by Demographics

    The state’s pension costs are being driven in part by demographics such as an aging workforce and longevity gains among retirees, as well as an increasing demand for government public services, the researchers said.

    The study, ‘Addressing California’s Pension Shortfalls,’ based its conclusions on data from the UCRS, California Legislative Analyst’s Office and California’s Finance Department. It examined the ratio of the three pensions’ forecast unfunded liabilities to current assets, after accounting for state contributions.

    To reduce costs, the Milken report recommends that California require public workers to contribute more to their pension funds and to retire later. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers this month agreed to similar changes in a contract with the state’s largest union.

    End Defined-Benefits

    The study also suggests California should move to a so- called risk-sharing retirement plan. It would guarantee a basic pension while asking employees to bear the investment risks for part of their future benefits, similar to a 401(K) plan.

    Such a change would reduce taxpayer liability when public funds lose money on their investments. Calpers lost more than $60 billion during the credit crisis of 2008 and 2009. The average five-year return on pension assets was about 3 percent for the most recently completed fiscal year, below the 7 percent or 8 percent benchmarks many states use, according to consulting firm Wilshire Associates.

    “It’s no secret that the state of California lacks the resources to make huge infusions into state pension funds,” Wong and Shen said in the report. “The state government is trapped in its own budget crisis, at least in the short run, and future expenditures for public services and programs are expected to rise simply to keep up with demographic trends in the short- to medium-term.”

    Schwarzenegger and California lawmakers agreed to cut state spending by $7.5 billion in a budget accord signed into law on Oct. 8, ending a 100-day impasse on how to close a $19.1 billion deficit. The Republican governor’s pension changes were part of his plan to cover the gap.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbau
    &

    Smoke and Mirrors in Sacramento
    California’s latest state budget is a fraud.


    Even before Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California’s state budget on October 8—100 days late—it was clear that the deal that made it possible was a kick-the-can-down-the-road deception. As the Los Angeles Times reported before the budget’s legislative passage: “If approved, [the budget] would fall out of balance almost the moment the ink dried.” The paper concluded that legislators had, for the most part, “settled on accounting sleight-of-hand: deferred payments, borrowed money and optimistic revenue assumptions.”

    Both Republicans and Democrats seemed happy enough with the agreement, relieved that the long ordeal was finally over until a new governor and legislature take office in January. Some Republican officials even insisted that the deal wasn’t so bad, and that, at $87.5 billion, the budget was as lean as it could be, given today’s political realities. “I am disappointed that it took us a full 100 days into the new fiscal year to pass a state budget, but I do believe this plan will help move our state forward,” said Republican Martin Garrick, the state assembly’s minority leader, in a prepared statement. “This budget doesn’t raise taxes, brings our state closer to living within its means, and includes budget and pension reforms.” Echoing the positive spin from another perspective, the Senate’s president pro tempore, Democrat Darrell Steinberg, declared: “While this year’s budget agreement includes billions in painful and difficult cuts, it also recognizes that our future economic success depends upon maintaining key investments in our people and our state.” Steinberg was pleased that the budget didn’t impose deeper cuts and included some “key reforms.”

    Yet just about everyone else on the right and left has ridiculed what Tom Brokaw, moderating the October 12 gubernatorial debate between Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman, called budgetary “smoke and mirrors.” As Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson explained in a Huffington Post column: “California has balanced its budget in part based on the assumption that the state will get $5.4 billion in federal funds. The problem is that the federal government has indicated that it will give something closer to $1.3 billion.” She notes, moreover, that $3 billion of the spending cuts come out of the education budget. Because the size of that budget is constitutionally mandated under the terms of a voter initiative (Proposition 98), those dollars must ultimately be repaid from the state budget—in other words, they’re not really cuts. Delayed tax credits will also have to be paid. And as antitax activist Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association points out, the budget’s “estimates of future revenue . . . would only be believed by someone who had just put their life savings into Florida swampland.

    . . .
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #160
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Let's talk California

    My father was in the CA state teacher's retirement. He got something like 95% or more of his pay through about 25 years of retirement. How can anyone expect that fund to remain solvent with numbers like that?
    Brian

  11. #161
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    ^^^^ It's simply not sustainable. We need a Christie type here badly. Eventually the rest of the country will stop funding this lil failed socilist experiment called CA.

    The Tax Me More State
    Two initiatives that would further punish California.


    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #162
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    Been watching them build this taxpayer funded white elephant for some time now. It's literally right off 880 and used to be home to Maxtor before the renovation. When this "green energy" wet dream goes tit's up minus gubberment $$$ as nearly all the libberal "green" wet dreams inevitably do. We'll get to look at this "stimulus" funded... $535 million dollar eyesore for years to come.



    Stimulus follies: $535 million down the drain in California in “green jobs”

    The Obama administration made Solyndra, a solar-power manufacturing company, a symbol of its “green jobs” push in the Porkulus program. Barack Obama himself toured the factory, as did Barbara Boxer. Taxpayers ended up sinking $535 million into building Solyndra a new facility that promised to add jobs in the clean-energy sector. Instead, now that Solyndra has its new facility, it’s closing another older facility and will lay off dozens of employees and cancel the contracts for 150 more contract workers:


    Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company’s plans to hire 1,000 workers.

    Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.

    The moves mean that instead of having 2,000 workers in Fremont, Solyndra will cap its work force at 1,000, which is about the current level. Solyndra also will, over the next several weeks, eliminate 155 to 175 jobs in Fremont. That includes 135 contract employees and 20 to 40 full-time workers, said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.
    In other words, we invested $535 million into a company that apparently couldn’t compete on a price basis with its foreign competition. Perhaps Obama and Boxer would choose to do this with the royalties each make from their literary enterprises. That would have been their money to lose.

    Instead, though, they borrowed $535 million — a significant portion from China, as one might recall — in order to gamble on Solyndra while putting us on the hook for the investment. Solyndra did all right from it; they got a nice new facility and now can dump their old plant. The television report focuses on the risk if Solyndra has to abandon the new plant, but the same can probably said about its old plant, at least when it comes to getting a new tenant. The old building will sit vacant for a long time in all likelihood while Solyndra downsizes and attempts to stay in business at their taxpayer-funded digs.

    It’s an object lesson in the incompetence of politicians and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in private markets.
    But hey... now the enviroweenies got their co2 taxation legislation passed. This business probably would have left the state even without foreign competition anyway. Just like the vast majority of other business that are going to join the masses of business that have already left in advance of this new energy tax. This state is screwed... blued and tattooed. America... look to California... do you want bamma and his congresscritter & union allies to turn your state into a mirror of this?

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #163
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    Ramirez nails it again...



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #164
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: Let's talk California

    ^^^ So we paid for another over-priced, soon to be vacant building.

    Great.

    F**king morons.

  15. #165
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,279

    Re: Let's talk California

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ So we paid for another over-priced, soon to be vacant building.

    Great.

    F**king morons.
    Maxtor up and left in an industry that is doing well in the private market. Who coulda thought that an industry that is nearly non existent minus copious amounts of gubberment subsidies would have a hard time surviving in rough economic times in the very same location.

    hey... if that ain't enough to make you retch. Just go a few more miles north on 880 and have a gander at what used to be the GM/NUMI plant. Tesla motors bought a good chunk of that factory... with a grant from... you guessed it.. you and I the taxpayer. Yet another gubberment funded libberal wet dream.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •