It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will California become America's first failed state?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Now let's talk about how many of them, since they have no marketable skills and are forced to find work in the lowest-paying jobs, take from the budget? Food stamps, medicaid, welfare, housing assistance... the list goes on and on of ways the taxpayer is paying much much more than they are getting.

And this is not for our citizens; this is for anyone who wants to wade across the Rio Grande!

TheRedneck



Illegals who work, pay the required taxes. On that point we agreed.


But then you go on to say that because they are forced to take the lowest paying jobs (due to no marketable skills) that they somehow represent a disproportionate burden on the tax-paying public by claiming welfare, medicaid, food stamps, etc..


What part of "Pay Their Taxes" are you over-looking?


If they pay thier taxes, they, too, share in the burden of the social programs supported By Their Taxes!


If your arguement is that because they earn so little that their contribution to the tax revenues is meager, I would dispute that it is not their illegal status that is the cause of their lessened contribution, but their meager pay.

It is the amount of the wage, not the legal status of the laborer that determines the amount of tax collected.


A full citizen earning as little would pay no more in taxes. And would, by virtue of their impoverishment, be eligible to claim the same social benefits you would begrudge the illegal; benefits available to all tax-payers.



"And this is not for our citizens; this is for anyone who wants to wade across the Rio Grande!"


A most telling statement. Would you have a society in which one is entitled to benefits merely by virtue of the fact that one is born here and not there, despite one's unwillingness to earn those benefits by labor at even the most menial, unskilled occupation.

And at the same time, you would deny those same benefits to those who, often at great personal risk, are willing, and grateful to take on those same menial, unskilled jobs, while paying into the commonwealth through taxation; simply because they were born there, not here.


Curious.



Could there be something else informing such an opinion. Perhaps something darker, and born of unreasoning fear?




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by silver tongue devil
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


What State are you residing in that does not spend more then they make?


Texas


Yup!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Very good post!


But in your 'haste' you forgot one key in the California energy crisis cause. Yes, it was a Republican governor in charge at the time, but here (as Paul Harvey used to say) 'is the rest of the story'.


In the mid-90's, under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, California began changing the electricity industry. Democratic State Senator Steve Peace, the chair of the energy committee and the author of the bill that put these changes into effect, is often credited as "the father of deregulation". Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by "the next governor".

Source.

[edit on 10/4/09 by Ferris.Bueller.II]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
On the topic of illegals . . .

could it be that they lower the wages of everyone overall, therefore lowering taxable income, therefore lowering government income?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
California is more than welcome to the rest of the countries illegal’s since they do not harm the economy. That will open up plenty of jobs for actual citizens everywhere else.


Of course California has it all figured out tax wise, that is why they are doing so well now.

Yep nothing to see here the California is the place to be. The world of imagination is almost always the happiest place on earth.





Raist



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Aquarius1
... and yes the weather is perfect, first three years I was there lived through the end of a five year drought, nine months of the year everything is dead, those so called Golden Hills are dead ...


You know, I keep hearing about the so-called perfect weather in the SF Bay Area. Also lived there for 15 years - until 2005.

That would be about the same time I worked in the area. Well from 2000-2005, give or take a few months (off/on while back home SE of Los Angeles). NOTHING in the SF bay area is perfect regardless of what they say. Realistically, NOTHING there is ANYWHERE NEAR PERFECT.
The people can't drive... they all think they're "holier than thou" without subscribing to any particular religion.
I saw a church near Haute/Ashbury with a banner saying "God Loves All of Her Children". Had to laugh being of the mindset I have: if there is a God of creation, It has gender? They didn't like me being there, working on their new cell-site, but AT&T's site manage said they wouldn't let anyone other than me test the RF portion. Guaranteed it works now.
Regardless of your faith, if you're AT&T, you have the same hotline to 911 God has.



Coming from the mid-west, I always thought the weather in the Bay Area was rather boring. No real seasons beyond just wet and dry. No majestic thunderstorms, and no snow.
The weather in the bay area (no need to capitalize it, as if it's somehow a proper noun) is, as you say, boring. Nothing spectacular. Trying to equate all of California with the weather climate of the SF bay area though, is like trying to sink a battle ship with a wrist-rocket (a.k.a. high-powered sling shot for those that don't know).

And we had to deal with the fog where I lived. The penalty for a sunny day was often a cold, clammy, foggy evening and night.

Like so many other things about the "Golden State", even the weather fails to live up to the hype.
....
Hype? You want hype? We get fog down here maybe 30 days out of the year, and even then it's gone rather quickly (unless some odd weather front moves through).
You can't judge the 3rd largest state of the Union by a few hundred square miles of weather.


Anyhow, how about me being 'hyped' up? I've lived here all of my nearly 40 years of existance and just when things start going well (mentioned above that Cali had a GenFund surplus around the year 2000) the Democrats start thinking that it is guaranteed, renewable, recyclable income.

A while before that, there was a 2 Billion (2,000,000,000) incentive / tax break / fund for clean air vehicles which GM took most of and offered the EV1 for "lease", then promptly took them all back a few years ago.

That 2 Billion could've out right purchased more than ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE THOUSAND Honda Civics (valued at 15000 each) to replace the same number of 'gross polluter' vehicles in operation in our state, and in doing so would have cut emissions well below the CARB and EPA 'recommendations'.

- - - Did they do it? Nope.

That 2 Billion could've OUT-RIGHT PURCHASED 50 THOUSAND CADILLACS (valued at 40000 each), replacing the same number of gross-polluter vehicles and likewise accomplished their goal of fuel economy and emissions control.

- - - Did they do it? Nope.

- Why?

Kind of hard to fathom why. I'm sure Honda or GM would've loved 2 Billion in out-right, flat, no-argument sales. I'm sure residents wouldn't mind giving up that 72 Chevy Nova with its 305-350 CID & 12-16 MPG for a brand new Honda Civic and its 25 MPG (not to mention that new car smell
)... But seems GM took that money, made some vehicles, got their rewards and took their cars back.
Wonder how Ed Begley Jr. feels about that? ... and let's forget he decided to 'selflessly' give up Thanksgiving with his family in order to "travel through 5 cities in 5 days as part of a campaign to generate awareness of simple ways to save on energy bills". We'll all also forget that staying at home and sending an email to 100 people every day for 5 days is far more energy efficient than driving to from one town to the next town, paying for rooms (and associated expenses), fuel (whether directly from the pump, or indirectly to the power-plant that generated the electricity to recharge some EV).


... speaking of which.. (don't you hate cerebral stutters?) BUYING OLDER CARS would have been a good CASH FOR CLUNKERS program!!!! ...
I think of my 72 Firebird as more of a clunker than my 91 Toyota truck. Am I wrong?

And California is looking to the Federal for help? If anything, during the last decade or so, at least since Clinton managed to shut down the US gov't for a little bit...
Cali should've been looking up for signs of what not to do. Sadly, they didn't see what was right in front of them, right before their eyes...
... something the Comptroller should've been warning of, something "logic" tells you: "DON'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE".

SO I suggest all the members of Cali's congress (you don't deserve a capital letter) join hands in a circle and sing Kumbaya around the camp fire. You're going to need blessings from your higher power (the voters
)

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to run the gamut I just did, but I just did.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar

Would you have a society in which one is entitled to benefits merely by virtue of the fact that one is born here and not there, despite one's unwillingness to earn those benefits by labor at even the most menial, unskilled occupation.

Yes.

You have to understand that we have legal ways to allow immigration into our country, necessitated by the simple fact that we cannot be the nanny to the world. California's present situation proves this. There is not enough production from 500 million people to support 6 billion people.

I will take a moment to thank California for proving this point so well, even at the cost of their way of life (which is about to disappear).

Now I ask you: do you leave your door wide open at home and allow anyone who wants in open entry? Do you allow them to raid your fridge whenever they feel like it and then do whatever they want (if anything) to repay you?

If so, you are either a saint or insane. For my part, I keep intruders out of my home. I may give plenty to those in need, but I do not allow anyone who wants to take whatever they want from me.


And at the same time, you would deny those same benefits to those who, often at great personal risk, are willing, and grateful to take on those same menial, unskilled jobs, while paying into the commonwealth through taxation; simply because they were born there, not here.

Yes.

That personal risk is only undertaken because they are unwilling to act within the law to come here legally. As soon as they become a criminal, yes, I will deny them the same treatment law-abiding people get.


Could there be something else informing such an opinion. Perhaps something darker, and born of unreasoning fear?

Only if you consider logic, adherence to the principles of the law, and attempting to provide for my family first as something 'dark'.

TheRedneck

edit to add:
reply to post by Raist

California is more than welcome to the rest of the countries illegal’s since they do not harm the economy. That will open up plenty of jobs for actual citizens everywhere else.

Raist, you are my hero!

TheRedneck


[edit on 10/4/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by grover
 



If you want to restrict something you tax it. If you want less people to smoke you increase taxes on it. The same thing goes with revenues. If you want less revenues, increase taxes.

Why can't California understand this?

Forgive me for picking at your point here but aren't cigs taxed because they know people can't stop smoking therefore they are guarenteed lots of money? Feeding off our bad habits which they created.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I can remember when the Border Patrol would raid an orange grove or factory before paychecks would be handed out. Since the early 1980's it seems that less and less "raids" kept the undocumented workers in place, just scared to complain.

As more and more people were drawn to El Norte, to avoid the American backed wars in Central America or to get a job on the American border in one of the factories that sprang up literally just over the border in Mexico, undocumented workers found their place in an American economy that wanted to keep inflation at bay.

Illegal workers are just one of the groups that provides a large pool of workers willing to work for less wages. The other group would be unemployed workers. And then there is the phenomena of groups of workers coming into a field under tiered wages, a wage lowering system voluntarily put into place by the workers themselves (as a concession to the corporation). For example, newer auto workers would be hired at up to half of older workers.

Of course, outsourcing provides a corporation another group of lower wage workers.

But, to get to my point, hmmmmm, yes, lowering the wages would mean less income taxes paid, but, low wages is also another way to turn an economy from one of savers to one of borrowers, as workers try to either keep up an accustomed lifestyle or try to move up on the social economic ladder by going into debt.

I guess lower/stagnant wages could also mean workers buying less taxable goods/services, especially if those workers must pay out more of their income for medical, food, education, etc. Holy vodka and oj , Batman, we're....!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


I am so sick of the argument that illegals do jobs no one else will do.

There are many people out there willing to do the jobs illegals are stealing (regardless of what anyone says they are stealing them). Most of the time you could find homeless people willing to do those very same jobs. I can point to the on/off ramps here in my town or by the local Wal-Mart where I see people with signs saying “will work for food”. I do not have jobs to offer them but have offered them money to get food. These were legal U.S. citizens not illegals. I can bet my check they would be more than willing to do a day or mores work that illegals do for some food and a nice place to rest.

Of course these are the people that we are told will not do the jobs.

With the economy the way it is I am sure there are many who would be more than willing to take any job they can get their hands on.

Those who are not willing to work and do nothing but drain the system should be given a cold wake up call. Drop their benefits and force them to earn a living. If they decide to resort to crime instead of trying to earn a living let them go to jail since they are of no use to society anyway.

Is it harsh? Yes. But truthfully I am sick of supporting those who drain our economy. I am also sick of hearing illegals do jobs no one else will.

If California was doing it right even half way right they would not be in the situation they are in. The fact they failed so hard should be proof their system as a whole is completely broken. But some people will never get that no matter if the evidence is living in their front yard.


Edit to add: TheRedneck thanks, you have been my hero many times.


Raist


[edit on 10/4/09 by Raist]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by and14263
If you want to restrict something you tax it. If you want less people to smoke you increase taxes on it. The same thing goes with revenues. If you want less revenues, increase taxes.

Why can't California understand this?

Forgive me for picking at your point here but aren't cigs taxed because they know people can't stop smoking therefore they are guarenteed lots of money? Feeding off our bad habits which they created.
Yeah, you might think, right?
But they managed to make me, my wife, and about 30 other people we know non-smokers right off the bat, on 9-22, when 'flavored' tobacco cigarettes became illegal. The way i look at that, 30 people suddenly stopped donating about $90 a day (3 dollars a pack tax * 30 people, 1 pack a day) to health care. $90 a day is over $32,000 a year... and that's just the few people we know at work and the neighborhood.

Gov't makes it a responsibility to buy tobacco in order to fund health care, then takes away the ability to buy tobacco products.

Instead of going after the people that buy tobacco products for minors, and those who sell tobacco products to minors, you know- the ones the current laws are supposed to target....
They take away tobacco products from everyone... well, the flavored ones anyhow... well, the flavored ones that aren't menthol. They take away clove, vanilla, strawberry, cherry, 'mint' (but ironically not menthol), cola, melon and whatever other flavor cigarette they can think of... except 'tobacco' and 'menthol' flavored?
Because they are 'gateway' flavors to smoking cigarettes? Can anything be more pedantic? There are already laws in place to prevent and punish selling tobacco products "OF ANY TYPE" to minors, yet they somehow feel that 'flavors' deserve being banned moreso than "tobacco itself" should be banned.

I'm really getting pissed off and violently frustrated by civilization itself.

It started with me not being able to go in to a bar and be in a place where everyone there wanted to smoke because even if everyone there smoked, you couldn't have a smoke. And now I cannot even have the smoke I want because someone else thinks kids will get it.

In the last week, I've found myself just about over the whole Cali failing argument: representative democracy my arse, even common decency and respect is falling over, giving way to the liberal / progressive "we know what's best for everyone" attitude that is the antithesis of human existence.

GTFO!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 

I hear what you're saying here.
When I heard about the flavoured cig banning I put it down to the authorities wanting to look like they were doing something for the good but picking the area of smallest sales... So it looks good but has the least negative financial impact. I didn't look at it like you but I am hearing you now.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by and14263
reply to post by abecedarian
 

I hear what you're saying here.
When I heard about the flavoured cig banning I put it down to the authorities wanting to look like they were doing something for the good but picking the area of smallest sales... So it looks good but has the least negative financial impact. I didn't look at it like you but I am hearing you now.
I didn't start 'smoking' until I was 22. I didn't like then, nor do I like now, the smell of regular 'cigarettes'. Even though I'm (or rather was) a smoker, I can walk in to a room and smell tobacco. Marlboro, Winston, PallMall, Lucky Strike... take your pick of top shelf to rollies tobacco, and I can tell... smell... the difference.
I like the taste and smell of kreteks, i.e. Djarum Special, and absolutely loathe any domestic 'blend', to the point I will go without.
I'm 39 now, started on 'cloves' when I was 22. Yeah, okay. Didn't toke a joint until I was 17, and it wasn't what anyone said it was. I like the taste of kreteks. Domestic blends don't do it. Blank&Mild (intentional mis-spelling) are little more than flavored air... if you can get past the air.
(/me rolls on floor laughing as if 'clove' cigarettes are in any way comparable to going from Vicodin to Heroin).


The way I see it is:
flavored tobacco products go away because "they are tempting to minors"
flavored alcohol products go away because "they are tempting to minors"....
Oh, what... flavored alcohols have been around longer than cloves?
Now I'm being targeted 'unfairly'?

Where's a good ACLU lawyer when you really need one?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
...
And at the same time, you would deny those same benefits to those who, often at great personal risk, are willing, and grateful to take on those same menial, unskilled jobs, while paying into the commonwealth through taxation; simply because they were born there, not here.
...

I'll say this straight up: Yup.
If you're willing to take on those un-skilled jobs, take on personal risks, and be menial, don't expect to be treated like everyone else.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Florida has already failed:

no more infrastructure

Disney owns the state above groung
Nestle owns everything below ground, including the "state owned" aquifer.

Phosphorus deposits are nearly depleted when were the world's #1 exporter.

Oranges can't grow because we #ed up the swamps causing large shifts in temperature.

Kids are reading below average which is less than a 50% on a test.

Republicans in the past 2 decades really done it this time.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by and14263
 


I want to add that Phillip-Morris or whatever conglomerate(s) which managed to keep 'menthol' tobacco legal, just raised their own 'domestic' sales while at the same time "nixing" any foreign competiton....
Anyone invoking some anti-trust act (Sherman?) anyone?... anyone?
May I add that there are NO STUDIES suggesting 'Kreteks' or 'Clove Cigarettes' are any worse than regular 'tobacco' cigarettes?
Which is banned by the FDA?
Wait... I though ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire-arms) was responsible for tobacco?
So if the FDA thinks 'Kreteks' (clove cigarettes) are bad, and they haven't been proven to be any worse than 'regular' cigarettes, then they all (all cigarettes) should be banned).

There goes a whole hell of a lot of that 'tobacco' tax money California needs....



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver tongue devil
What State are you residing in that does not spend more then they make?


Nevada
And we don't have state income tax...

But I think I will start a campaign to lock the border to CA



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day
Florida has already failed:

no more infrastructure

Disney owns the state above groung
Nestle owns everything below ground, including the "state owned" aquifer.

Phosphorus deposits are nearly depleted when were the world's #1 exporter.

Oranges can't grow because we #ed up the swamps causing large shifts in temperature.

Kids are reading below average which is less than a 50% on a test.

Republicans in the past 2 decades really done it this time.


I'm glad someone mentioned Florida. That would make Cali failure #2.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


only have one thing to say about this. Legalize marijuana, use it in small doses, medically, also for oil, paper, clothes, the list goes on...but no, we can't learn from countries like amsterdam, a place with no violence and crime. Billions of dollars will be made, trillions if legalized nation wide.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join