How California is turning the rest of the West blue (Atlas red)

[hopper]

Yes and high taxes are what cause high unemployment and a failing economy.

You do realize California's economy is doing just fine, don't you? It just doesn't favor low skill manufacturing and other things that can be done in low cost states. High tech companies and high tech manufacturing, along with the entertainment industry and other industries dependent on location (like the trade industry) are doing just fine. And it's not high taxes that cause a high cost of living. If I move back to California, it will be higher rent/mortgage that will cause a higher cost of living as opposed to taxes. And I would have a 6 figure income.....

California's unemployment rate was about 3% higher than the U.S. in late 2011, when we were undergoing some brutal austerity measures. In 2012, voters approved higher sales taxes and a millionaire's tax. Now our books are balanced and our economy is on a tear. We're adding jobs, and they're actually good, high-paying jobs as opposed to the low-income service jobs other states are adding. We're only ~1.5% higher than the national average now, and making good progress on closing that gap further.

California's unemployment rate dropped from a high of 12%+ down to 8.7%. That's not as good as Colorado percentage-wise, but we've been adding jobs at a faster pace.

I'm glad to hear that. Spending must be down too.

Brown reversed many of the deep cuts to education and other programs after the tax passed. That was the point. California was given the choice between austerity and paying an extra 0.25% on purchases. We chose the latter, because education is crucial to the high-tech economy of the state.

California is one state who could afford a millionaire tax due to all of the millionaires in the state. Other than them, I'd be hard pressed to find a state where such a policy would be suitable.

The United States could. Maybe we should have a millionaire's tax at the federal level?

Well no other states could afford it because states which have already tried it have lost millionaires, which means they lost job creators, which means jobs were lost. Millionaires migrated from New York to New Jersey and from Maryland to Virginia in order to avoid this. Doing it at the federal level is one thing, but again I don't know anyone who can't get around paying taxes due to loopholes, technicalities, and write offs. It's basically more trouble than it's worth.

And Virginia and New Jersey will soon probably follow. This isn't about punishing success as it is passing the bills to those who can afford to pay them. Maybe "You didn't build that" went too far but the point is that they were given the opportunity to find their niche and focus on it. That's the way people in California see it, too. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 6-figure computer scientists in San Francisco  or 7-figure actors in Los Angeles. That's the reason houses are so expensive there. Its because everyone wants to more there and only the most educated or unique people can get jobs there and those people who get jobs there want to have nice things and places to live.

Maybe there is a neoliberal alternative to this model but we just haven't seen one yet that can survive free of total dependence on irresponsible and short term growth industries. Something tells me that without Coal and Oil, places like Texas would be more like Arkansas or Tennessee and places like the Dakotas would either be like Nebraska or Minnesota/Iowa. I actually wonder what California or New York would be like if in the late 19th century, the huge oil deposits where there instead of Texas and North Dakota.  

Why would Virginia pass a millionares tax? Its books are pretty balanced. New Jersey: Well I live there so yes if we get a D Governor(besides Sweeney)after Christie the legislature might pass a millionares tax. Sweeney is a Blue Dog Dem so even if Sweeney is still Senate President in 2017 or 2018 it may be a little hard to get a millionares tax past him.

Why is it passing bills to who can afford them? If a state can balance their books why raise taxes just for the sake of raising taxes on wealthy people?

[Person Man]

Yes and high taxes are what cause high unemployment and a failing economy.

You do realize California's economy is doing just fine, don't you? It just doesn't favor low skill manufacturing and other things that can be done in low cost states. High tech companies and high tech manufacturing, along with the entertainment industry and other industries dependent on location (like the trade industry) are doing just fine. And it's not high taxes that cause a high cost of living. If I move back to California, it will be higher rent/mortgage that will cause a higher cost of living as opposed to taxes. And I would have a 6 figure income.....

California's unemployment rate was about 3% higher than the U.S. in late 2011, when we were undergoing some brutal austerity measures. In 2012, voters approved higher sales taxes and a millionaire's tax. Now our books are balanced and our economy is on a tear. We're adding jobs, and they're actually good, high-paying jobs as opposed to the low-income service jobs other states are adding. We're only ~1.5% higher than the national average now, and making good progress on closing that gap further.

California's unemployment rate dropped from a high of 12%+ down to 8.7%. That's not as good as Colorado percentage-wise, but we've been adding jobs at a faster pace.

I'm glad to hear that. Spending must be down too.

Brown reversed many of the deep cuts to education and other programs after the tax passed. That was the point. California was given the choice between austerity and paying an extra 0.25% on purchases. We chose the latter, because education is crucial to the high-tech economy of the state.

California is one state who could afford a millionaire tax due to all of the millionaires in the state. Other than them, I'd be hard pressed to find a state where such a policy would be suitable.

The United States could. Maybe we should have a millionaire's tax at the federal level?

Well no other states could afford it because states which have already tried it have lost millionaires, which means they lost job creators, which means jobs were lost. Millionaires migrated from New York to New Jersey and from Maryland to Virginia in order to avoid this. Doing it at the federal level is one thing, but again I don't know anyone who can't get around paying taxes due to loopholes, technicalities, and write offs. It's basically more trouble than it's worth.

And Virginia and New Jersey will soon probably follow. This isn't about punishing success as it is passing the bills to those who can afford to pay them. Maybe "You didn't build that" went too far but the point is that they were given the opportunity to find their niche and focus on it. That's the way people in California see it, too. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 6-figure computer scientists in San Francisco  or 7-figure actors in Los Angeles. That's the reason houses are so expensive there. Its because everyone wants to more there and only the most educated or unique people can get jobs there and those people who get jobs there want to have nice things and places to live.

Maybe there is a neoliberal alternative to this model but we just haven't seen one yet that can survive free of total dependence on irresponsible and short term growth industries. Something tells me that without Coal and Oil, places like Texas would be more like Arkansas or Tennessee and places like the Dakotas would either be like Nebraska or Minnesota/Iowa. I actually wonder what California or New York would be like if in the late 19th century, the huge oil deposits where there instead of Texas and North Dakota. 

Why would Virginia pass a millionares tax? Its books are pretty balanced. New Jersey: Well I live there so yes if we get a D Governor(besides Sweeney)after Christie the legislature might pass a millionares tax. Sweeney is a Blue Dog Dem so even if Sweeney is still Senate President in 2017 or 2018 it may be a little hard to get a millionares tax past him.

Why is it passing bills to who can afford them? If a state can balance their books why raise taxes just for the sake of raising taxes on wealthy people?

To make it easier on everyone else who to live off of a limited income. If you have an effectively unlimited income, you won't be hurting if you are missing a few hundred from each paycheck (or a few thousands from each dividend).

[Non Swing Voter]

Sort of mixed stuff here. I doubt it will have much of an effect in Idaho or Washington where the states are pretty safe on a Presidential level, however the effect on Nevada or Colorado is huge.

Actually you have to understand that people of different mentalities move to different states. Olds who are more liberal and into gambling might move to Nevada. Also those who serve them by working in the service industry, making the state atlas red. On the other hand Arizona attracts conservative retirees who don't like Mexicans but like golf. Idaho also attracts those who are already conservative or racists who want to get away from Mexicans.

Do you think that all the conservatives who migrate there move there because they hate Mexicans? I have no idea if this is true but I would think its more of a democratic conspiracy than an actual fact. I don't think they dislike Mexicans in general, but I think they don't like the illegal Mexicans crossing the border with our broken immigration system.

Many don't like the fact that half of SoCal is Hispanic now, most of them being native born citizens. Doesn't matter to these folks, who will use the illegals argument to hide their hate.

So California republicans are racist, yet another race-blaming game.

That's what Democrats do. They don't have any positions on the issues so they just play the race card.

Republicans never play the race card, they prefer to just disenfranchise minority voters altogether.

[hopper]

Yes and high taxes are what cause high unemployment and a failing economy.

You do realize California's economy is doing just fine, don't you? It just doesn't favor low skill manufacturing and other things that can be done in low cost states. High tech companies and high tech manufacturing, along with the entertainment industry and other industries dependent on location (like the trade industry) are doing just fine. And it's not high taxes that cause a high cost of living. If I move back to California, it will be higher rent/mortgage that will cause a higher cost of living as opposed to taxes. And I would have a 6 figure income.....

California's unemployment rate was about 3% higher than the U.S. in late 2011, when we were undergoing some brutal austerity measures. In 2012, voters approved higher sales taxes and a millionaire's tax. Now our books are balanced and our economy is on a tear. We're adding jobs, and they're actually good, high-paying jobs as opposed to the low-income service jobs other states are adding. We're only ~1.5% higher than the national average now, and making good progress on closing that gap further.

California's unemployment rate dropped from a high of 12%+ down to 8.7%. That's not as good as Colorado percentage-wise, but we've been adding jobs at a faster pace.

I'm glad to hear that. Spending must be down too.

Brown reversed many of the deep cuts to education and other programs after the tax passed. That was the point. California was given the choice between austerity and paying an extra 0.25% on purchases. We chose the latter, because education is crucial to the high-tech economy of the state.

California is one state who could afford a millionaire tax due to all of the millionaires in the state. Other than them, I'd be hard pressed to find a state where such a policy would be suitable.

The United States could. Maybe we should have a millionaire's tax at the federal level?

Well no other states could afford it because states which have already tried it have lost millionaires, which means they lost job creators, which means jobs were lost. Millionaires migrated from New York to New Jersey and from Maryland to Virginia in order to avoid this. Doing it at the federal level is one thing, but again I don't know anyone who can't get around paying taxes due to loopholes, technicalities, and write offs. It's basically more trouble than it's worth.

And Virginia and New Jersey will soon probably follow. This isn't about punishing success as it is passing the bills to those who can afford to pay them. Maybe "You didn't build that" went too far but the point is that they were given the opportunity to find their niche and focus on it. That's the way people in California see it, too. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 6-figure computer scientists in San Francisco  or 7-figure actors in Los Angeles. That's the reason houses are so expensive there. Its because everyone wants to more there and only the most educated or unique people can get jobs there and those people who get jobs there want to have nice things and places to live.

Maybe there is a neoliberal alternative to this model but we just haven't seen one yet that can survive free of total dependence on irresponsible and short term growth industries. Something tells me that without Coal and Oil, places like Texas would be more like Arkansas or Tennessee and places like the Dakotas would either be like Nebraska or Minnesota/Iowa. I actually wonder what California or New York would be like if in the late 19th century, the huge oil deposits where there instead of Texas and North Dakota. 

Why would Virginia pass a millionares tax? Its books are pretty balanced. New Jersey: Well I live there so yes if we get a D Governor(besides Sweeney)after Christie the legislature might pass a millionares tax. Sweeney is a Blue Dog Dem so even if Sweeney is still Senate President in 2017 or 2018 it may be a little hard to get a millionares tax past him.

Why is it passing bills to who can afford them? If a state can balance their books why raise taxes just for the sake of raising taxes on wealthy people?

To make it easier on everyone else who to live off of a limited income. If you have an effectively unlimited income, you won't be hurting if you are missing a few hundred from each paycheck (or a few thousands from each dividend).

I just don't believe in wealth distribution just for the heck of it.

[opebo]

I just don't believe in wealth distribution just for the heck of it.

That's called capitalism, hopper.

[barfbag]

I just don't believe in wealth distribution just for the heck of it.

That's called capitalism, hopper.

You don't like to be politically correct and say free market instead of capitalism?

[Holmes]

Colorado is a lot more moderate economically where as California is more liberal.

In case you haven't noticed, D=moderate economically.

In Colorado I'm sure the D's are moderate  there economically but California they are liberal on economic issues. California is like 44th in job creation per Gallup "State of the States" stats and is 48th on Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Colorado is 18th in Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Don't have job creation stats off-hand for CO though.

Not many California residents are "liberal on economic issues". Gg.

[hopper]

Colorado is a lot more moderate economically where as California is more liberal.

In case you haven't noticed, D=moderate economically.

In Colorado I'm sure the D's are moderate  there economically but California they are liberal on economic issues. California is like 44th in job creation per Gallup "State of the States" stats and is 48th on Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Colorado is 18th in Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Don't have job creation stats off-hand for CO though.

Not many California residents are "liberal on economic issues". Gg.

Well 2 examples: Why won't they let residents  crops grow? I mean they turn off hoses just so a little critter can survive? This issue was brought up a couple times apiece in 2009 and 2010: During the 2010 US Senate Race and the ObamaCare debate. Didn't then ex-rep. Dennis Cardoza make a deal or something that if he voted yes on "ObamaCare" that the hose would be turned on?

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?  Tiger Woods used to live in CA but he doesn't live there anymore. He lives in FL now. Its the way CA taxes that drives people out of the state.

[barfbag]

Colorado is a lot more moderate economically where as California is more liberal.

In case you haven't noticed, D=moderate economically.

In Colorado I'm sure the D's are moderate  there economically but California they are liberal on economic issues. California is like 44th in job creation per Gallup "State of the States" stats and is 48th on Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Colorado is 18th in Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Don't have job creation stats off-hand for CO though.

Not many California residents are "liberal on economic issues". Gg.

Well 2 examples: Why won't they let residents  crops grow? I mean they turn off hoses just so a little critter can survive? This issue was brought up a couple times apiece in 2009 and 2010: During the 2010 US Senate Race and the ObamaCare debate. Didn't then ex-rep. Dennis Cardoza make a deal or something that if he voted yes on "ObamaCare" that the hose would be turned on?

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?  Tiger Woods used to live in CA but he doesn't live there anymore. He lives in FL now. Its the way CA taxes that drives people out of the state.

It doesn't surprise me they don't let their residents grow crops. Their tax rate is disgusting and Tiger Woods is a hero for moving. Florida and Texas are the places to be. Furthermore, this was the first census where California didn't gain an electoral vote. Any surprise why?

[Person Man]

Colorado is a lot more moderate economically where as California is more liberal.

In case you haven't noticed, D=moderate economically.

In Colorado I'm sure the D's are moderate  there economically but California they are liberal on economic issues. California is like 44th in job creation per Gallup "State of the States" stats and is 48th on Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Colorado is 18th in Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Don't have job creation stats off-hand for CO though.

Not many California residents are "liberal on economic issues". Gg.

Well 2 examples: Why won't they let residents  crops grow? I mean they turn off hoses just so a little critter can survive? This issue was brought up a couple times apiece in 2009 and 2010: During the 2010 US Senate Race and the ObamaCare debate. Didn't then ex-rep. Dennis Cardoza make a deal or something that if he voted yes on "ObamaCare" that the hose would be turned on?

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?  Tiger Woods used to live in CA but he doesn't live there anymore. He lives in FL now. Its the way CA taxes that drives people out of the state.

It doesn't surprise me they don't let their residents grow crops. Their tax rate is disgusting and Tiger Woods is a hero for moving. Florida and Texas are the places to be. Furthermore, this was the first census where California didn't gain an electoral vote. Any surprise why?

Why isn't Hollywood or Silicon Valley in Miami or Houston, then?

Yes and high taxes are what cause high unemployment and a failing economy.

You do realize California's economy is doing just fine, don't you? It just doesn't favor low skill manufacturing and other things that can be done in low cost states. High tech companies and high tech manufacturing, along with the entertainment industry and other industries dependent on location (like the trade industry) are doing just fine. And it's not high taxes that cause a high cost of living. If I move back to California, it will be higher rent/mortgage that will cause a higher cost of living as opposed to taxes. And I would have a 6 figure income.....

California's unemployment rate was about 3% higher than the U.S. in late 2011, when we were undergoing some brutal austerity measures. In 2012, voters approved higher sales taxes and a millionaire's tax. Now our books are balanced and our economy is on a tear. We're adding jobs, and they're actually good, high-paying jobs as opposed to the low-income service jobs other states are adding. We're only ~1.5% higher than the national average now, and making good progress on closing that gap further.

California's unemployment rate dropped from a high of 12%+ down to 8.7%. That's not as good as Colorado percentage-wise, but we've been adding jobs at a faster pace.

I'm glad to hear that. Spending must be down too.

Brown reversed many of the deep cuts to education and other programs after the tax passed. That was the point. California was given the choice between austerity and paying an extra 0.25% on purchases. We chose the latter, because education is crucial to the high-tech economy of the state.

California is one state who could afford a millionaire tax due to all of the millionaires in the state. Other than them, I'd be hard pressed to find a state where such a policy would be suitable.

The United States could. Maybe we should have a millionaire's tax at the federal level?

Well no other states could afford it because states which have already tried it have lost millionaires, which means they lost job creators, which means jobs were lost. Millionaires migrated from New York to New Jersey and from Maryland to Virginia in order to avoid this. Doing it at the federal level is one thing, but again I don't know anyone who can't get around paying taxes due to loopholes, technicalities, and write offs. It's basically more trouble than it's worth.

And Virginia and New Jersey will soon probably follow. This isn't about punishing success as it is passing the bills to those who can afford to pay them. Maybe "You didn't build that" went too far but the point is that they were given the opportunity to find their niche and focus on it. That's the way people in California see it, too. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 6-figure computer scientists in San Francisco  or 7-figure actors in Los Angeles. That's the reason houses are so expensive there. Its because everyone wants to more there and only the most educated or unique people can get jobs there and those people who get jobs there want to have nice things and places to live.

Maybe there is a neoliberal alternative to this model but we just haven't seen one yet that can survive free of total dependence on irresponsible and short term growth industries. Something tells me that without Coal and Oil, places like Texas would be more like Arkansas or Tennessee and places like the Dakotas would either be like Nebraska or Minnesota/Iowa. I actually wonder what California or New York would be like if in the late 19th century, the huge oil deposits where there instead of Texas and North Dakota.  

Why would Virginia pass a millionares tax? Its books are pretty balanced. New Jersey: Well I live there so yes if we get a D Governor(besides Sweeney)after Christie the legislature might pass a millionares tax. Sweeney is a Blue Dog Dem so even if Sweeney is still Senate President in 2017 or 2018 it may be a little hard to get a millionares tax past him.

Why is it passing bills to who can afford them? If a state can balance their books why raise taxes just for the sake of raising taxes on wealthy people?

To make it easier on everyone else who to live off of a limited income. If you have an effectively unlimited income, you won't be hurting if you are missing a few hundred from each paycheck (or a few thousands from each dividend).

I just don't believe in wealth distribution just for the heck of it.

Well, because you "just don't believe in things" is why things aren't as good for you as they could be. How can there be any freedom in that?
 
That's what makes rich people rich. They don't "just don't believe in _____".

[barfbag]

Colorado is a lot more moderate economically where as California is more liberal.

In case you haven't noticed, D=moderate economically.

In Colorado I'm sure the D's are moderate  there economically but California they are liberal on economic issues. California is like 44th in job creation per Gallup "State of the States" stats and is 48th on Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Colorado is 18th in Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Don't have job creation stats off-hand for CO though.

Not many California residents are "liberal on economic issues". Gg.

Well 2 examples: Why won't they let residents  crops grow? I mean they turn off hoses just so a little critter can survive? This issue was brought up a couple times apiece in 2009 and 2010: During the 2010 US Senate Race and the ObamaCare debate. Didn't then ex-rep. Dennis Cardoza make a deal or something that if he voted yes on "ObamaCare" that the hose would be turned on?

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?  Tiger Woods used to live in CA but he doesn't live there anymore. He lives in FL now. Its the way CA taxes that drives people out of the state.

It doesn't surprise me they don't let their residents grow crops. Their tax rate is disgusting and Tiger Woods is a hero for moving. Florida and Texas are the places to be. Furthermore, this was the first census where California didn't gain an electoral vote. Any surprise why?

Why isn't Hollywood or Silicon Valley in Miami or Houston, then?

Yes and high taxes are what cause high unemployment and a failing economy.

You do realize California's economy is doing just fine, don't you? It just doesn't favor low skill manufacturing and other things that can be done in low cost states. High tech companies and high tech manufacturing, along with the entertainment industry and other industries dependent on location (like the trade industry) are doing just fine. And it's not high taxes that cause a high cost of living. If I move back to California, it will be higher rent/mortgage that will cause a higher cost of living as opposed to taxes. And I would have a 6 figure income.....

California's unemployment rate was about 3% higher than the U.S. in late 2011, when we were undergoing some brutal austerity measures. In 2012, voters approved higher sales taxes and a millionaire's tax. Now our books are balanced and our economy is on a tear. We're adding jobs, and they're actually good, high-paying jobs as opposed to the low-income service jobs other states are adding. We're only ~1.5% higher than the national average now, and making good progress on closing that gap further.

California's unemployment rate dropped from a high of 12%+ down to 8.7%. That's not as good as Colorado percentage-wise, but we've been adding jobs at a faster pace.

I'm glad to hear that. Spending must be down too.

Brown reversed many of the deep cuts to education and other programs after the tax passed. That was the point. California was given the choice between austerity and paying an extra 0.25% on purchases. We chose the latter, because education is crucial to the high-tech economy of the state.

California is one state who could afford a millionaire tax due to all of the millionaires in the state. Other than them, I'd be hard pressed to find a state where such a policy would be suitable.

The United States could. Maybe we should have a millionaire's tax at the federal level?

Well no other states could afford it because states which have already tried it have lost millionaires, which means they lost job creators, which means jobs were lost. Millionaires migrated from New York to New Jersey and from Maryland to Virginia in order to avoid this. Doing it at the federal level is one thing, but again I don't know anyone who can't get around paying taxes due to loopholes, technicalities, and write offs. It's basically more trouble than it's worth.

And Virginia and New Jersey will soon probably follow. This isn't about punishing success as it is passing the bills to those who can afford to pay them. Maybe "You didn't build that" went too far but the point is that they were given the opportunity to find their niche and focus on it. That's the way people in California see it, too. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 6-figure computer scientists in San Francisco  or 7-figure actors in Los Angeles. That's the reason houses are so expensive there. Its because everyone wants to more there and only the most educated or unique people can get jobs there and those people who get jobs there want to have nice things and places to live.

Maybe there is a neoliberal alternative to this model but we just haven't seen one yet that can survive free of total dependence on irresponsible and short term growth industries. Something tells me that without Coal and Oil, places like Texas would be more like Arkansas or Tennessee and places like the Dakotas would either be like Nebraska or Minnesota/Iowa. I actually wonder what California or New York would be like if in the late 19th century, the huge oil deposits where there instead of Texas and North Dakota.  

Why would Virginia pass a millionares tax? Its books are pretty balanced. New Jersey: Well I live there so yes if we get a D Governor(besides Sweeney)after Christie the legislature might pass a millionares tax. Sweeney is a Blue Dog Dem so even if Sweeney is still Senate President in 2017 or 2018 it may be a little hard to get a millionares tax past him.

Why is it passing bills to who can afford them? If a state can balance their books why raise taxes just for the sake of raising taxes on wealthy people?

To make it easier on everyone else who to live off of a limited income. If you have an effectively unlimited income, you won't be hurting if you are missing a few hundred from each paycheck (or a few thousands from each dividend).

I just don't believe in wealth distribution just for the heck of it.

Well, because you "just don't believe in things" is why things aren't as good for you as they could be. How can there be any freedom in that?
 
That's what makes rich people rich. They don't "just don't believe in _____".

So all you're saying is that things would be better if we were dependent on the government? How can there be any freedom in that? We are free to make our own way.

[Sbane]

Yeah, California has no crops whatsoever. It's not as if 95% of strawberries and various nuts are grown in California. Oranges don't grow there either. There isn't a huge trade of California grown rice going to Japan. The Napa valley wine industry is not real, just a part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Seriously though, California had some of the most productive crop lands in the US. I think they get too much water subsidies. If they had to pay for the real price of water (which they would decry as communism I am sure), there would be much better use of water resources. Crops like cotton should not be grown in California. Almonds, a tree that doesn't need a lot of water is a different story and that crop hasn't had that much of an impact. Even with the water restrictions, California agriculture is a powerhouse that is an envy of every other state out there.

[barfbag]

Yeah, California has no crops whatsoever. It's not as if 95% of strawberries and various nuts are grown in California. Oranges don't grow there either. There isn't a huge trade of California grown rice going to Japan. The Napa valley wine industry is not real, just a part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Seriously though, California had some of the most productive crop lands in the US. I think they get too much water subsidies. If they had to pay for the real price of water (which they would decry as communism I am sure), there would be much better use of water resources. Crops like cotton should not be grown in California. Almonds, a tree that doesn't need a lot of water is a different story and that crop hasn't had that much of an impact. Even with the water restrictions, California agriculture is a powerhouse that is an envy of every other state out there.

We're aware of California's enviable agriculture, but what did he mean by them not being allowed to grow their own crops?

[minionofmidas]

To put it simply, you might just as well have called this thread "How California is keeping the rest of the West red (Atlas blue)". These people moving out is part of the reason California is trending Dem. (Though that's certainly not true of Nevada, and not of some of the other states either.)

[barfbag]

To put it simply, you might just as well have called this thread "How California is keeping the rest of the West red (Atlas blue)". These people moving out is part of the reason California is trending Dem. (Though that's certainly not true of Nevada, and not of some of the other states either.)

This is another good point, but if you average the west, it's very purple. It has the reddest states though.

[Sbane]

Yeah, California has no crops whatsoever. It's not as if 95% of strawberries and various nuts are grown in California. Oranges don't grow there either. There isn't a huge trade of California grown rice going to Japan. The Napa valley wine industry is not real, just a part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Seriously though, California had some of the most productive crop lands in the US. I think they get too much water subsidies. If they had to pay for the real price of water (which they would decry as communism I am sure), there would be much better use of water resources. Crops like cotton should not be grown in California. Almonds, a tree that doesn't need a lot of water is a different story and that crop hasn't had that much of an impact. Even with the water restrictions, California agriculture is a powerhouse that is an envy of every other state out there.

We're aware of California's enviable agriculture, but what did he mean by them not being allowed to grow their own crops?

He was talking about the water restrictions in the Central Valley to protect the Delta smelt. I am a little ambivalent on that but the farmers need to practice better water conservation and choose their crops carefully. We can make this happen by making them pay the market price for water.

[LastVoter]

I don't think that California can be blamed for turning Oregon and Washington Democratic.  Dukakis carried those two states, but not California.  The Pacific Northwest has its own native liberalismsocialism. 

Also, not all of these Californians are liberal, and I doubt that the influx of Orange County whites will result in Idaho becoming a Democratic state. 

If anything the Californian migration can be blamed for Seattle metro's inability to create good solutions to regional public issues.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?

That's not remotely crazy. What's crazy is the money he earns for playing golf while millions of real workers are struggling to stay afloat.

[Person Man]

Colorado is a lot more moderate economically where as California is more liberal.

In case you haven't noticed, D=moderate economically.

In Colorado I'm sure the D's are moderate  there economically but California they are liberal on economic issues. California is like 44th in job creation per Gallup "State of the States" stats and is 48th on Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Colorado is 18th in Business Climate per the "Tax Foundation". Don't have job creation stats off-hand for CO though.

Not many California residents are "liberal on economic issues". Gg.

Well 2 examples: Why won't they let residents  crops grow? I mean they turn off hoses just so a little critter can survive? This issue was brought up a couple times apiece in 2009 and 2010: During the 2010 US Senate Race and the ObamaCare debate. Didn't then ex-rep. Dennis Cardoza make a deal or something that if he voted yes on "ObamaCare" that the hose would be turned on?

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?  Tiger Woods used to live in CA but he doesn't live there anymore. He lives in FL now. Its the way CA taxes that drives people out of the state.

It doesn't surprise me they don't let their residents grow crops. Their tax rate is disgusting and Tiger Woods is a hero for moving. Florida and Texas are the places to be. Furthermore, this was the first census where California didn't gain an electoral vote. Any surprise why?

Why isn't Hollywood or Silicon Valley in Miami or Houston, then?

Yes and high taxes are what cause high unemployment and a failing economy.

You do realize California's economy is doing just fine, don't you? It just doesn't favor low skill manufacturing and other things that can be done in low cost states. High tech companies and high tech manufacturing, along with the entertainment industry and other industries dependent on location (like the trade industry) are doing just fine. And it's not high taxes that cause a high cost of living. If I move back to California, it will be higher rent/mortgage that will cause a higher cost of living as opposed to taxes. And I would have a 6 figure income.....

California's unemployment rate was about 3% higher than the U.S. in late 2011, when we were undergoing some brutal austerity measures. In 2012, voters approved higher sales taxes and a millionaire's tax. Now our books are balanced and our economy is on a tear. We're adding jobs, and they're actually good, high-paying jobs as opposed to the low-income service jobs other states are adding. We're only ~1.5% higher than the national average now, and making good progress on closing that gap further.

California's unemployment rate dropped from a high of 12%+ down to 8.7%. That's not as good as Colorado percentage-wise, but we've been adding jobs at a faster pace.

I'm glad to hear that. Spending must be down too.

Brown reversed many of the deep cuts to education and other programs after the tax passed. That was the point. California was given the choice between austerity and paying an extra 0.25% on purchases. We chose the latter, because education is crucial to the high-tech economy of the state.

California is one state who could afford a millionaire tax due to all of the millionaires in the state. Other than them, I'd be hard pressed to find a state where such a policy would be suitable.

The United States could. Maybe we should have a millionaire's tax at the federal level?

Well no other states could afford it because states which have already tried it have lost millionaires, which means they lost job creators, which means jobs were lost. Millionaires migrated from New York to New Jersey and from Maryland to Virginia in order to avoid this. Doing it at the federal level is one thing, but again I don't know anyone who can't get around paying taxes due to loopholes, technicalities, and write offs. It's basically more trouble than it's worth.

And Virginia and New Jersey will soon probably follow. This isn't about punishing success as it is passing the bills to those who can afford to pay them. Maybe "You didn't build that" went too far but the point is that they were given the opportunity to find their niche and focus on it. That's the way people in California see it, too. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 6-figure computer scientists in San Francisco  or 7-figure actors in Los Angeles. That's the reason houses are so expensive there. Its because everyone wants to more there and only the most educated or unique people can get jobs there and those people who get jobs there want to have nice things and places to live.

Maybe there is a neoliberal alternative to this model but we just haven't seen one yet that can survive free of total dependence on irresponsible and short term growth industries. Something tells me that without Coal and Oil, places like Texas would be more like Arkansas or Tennessee and places like the Dakotas would either be like Nebraska or Minnesota/Iowa. I actually wonder what California or New York would be like if in the late 19th century, the huge oil deposits where there instead of Texas and North Dakota.  

Why would Virginia pass a millionares tax? Its books are pretty balanced. New Jersey: Well I live there so yes if we get a D Governor(besides Sweeney)after Christie the legislature might pass a millionares tax. Sweeney is a Blue Dog Dem so even if Sweeney is still Senate President in 2017 or 2018 it may be a little hard to get a millionares tax past him.

Why is it passing bills to who can afford them? If a state can balance their books why raise taxes just for the sake of raising taxes on wealthy people?

To make it easier on everyone else who to live off of a limited income. If you have an effectively unlimited income, you won't be hurting if you are missing a few hundred from each paycheck (or a few thousands from each dividend).

I just don't believe in wealth distribution just for the heck of it.

Well, because you "just don't believe in things" is why things aren't as good for you as they could be. How can there be any freedom in that?
 
That's what makes rich people rich. They don't "just don't believe in _____".

So all you're saying is that things would be better if we were dependent on the government? How can there be any freedom in that? We are free to make our own way.

Its not about being dependent on Government. Its about using Government to make your life better. Rich people do it. Why can't you? Why else would we have a Government?

 This is about protecting your own self-interest. Otherwise, there is nothing democratic about this country if the typical citizen has to determine what's right, wrong, good or bad for everyone. Government for Government's sake or not entrusting value judgments to those you elect based on your interests is what socialism and fascism were built on.

What I think is what someone better than I am do in the situation they are in now. If any of the folklore of capitalism is true, at least one of them was. 

[Person Man]

Yeah, California has no crops whatsoever. It's not as if 95% of strawberries and various nuts are grown in California. Oranges don't grow there either. There isn't a huge trade of California grown rice going to Japan. The Napa valley wine industry is not real, just a part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Seriously though, California had some of the most productive crop lands in the US. I think they get too much water subsidies. If they had to pay for the real price of water (which they would decry as communism I am sure), there would be much better use of water resources. Crops like cotton should not be grown in California. Almonds, a tree that doesn't need a lot of water is a different story and that crop hasn't had that much of an impact. Even with the water restrictions, California agriculture is a powerhouse that is an envy of every other state out there.

We're aware of California's enviable agriculture, but what did he mean by them not being allowed to grow their own crops?

He was talking about the water restrictions in the Central Valley to protect the Delta smelt. I am a little ambivalent on that but the farmers need to practice better water conservation and choose their crops carefully. We can make this happen by making them pay the market price for water.

So maybe the CEO of Nestl'e was right in that water is a commodity to be owned and managed by rich people and not the Government?

[barfbag]

Yeah, California has no crops whatsoever. It's not as if 95% of strawberries and various nuts are grown in California. Oranges don't grow there either. There isn't a huge trade of California grown rice going to Japan. The Napa valley wine industry is not real, just a part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Seriously though, California had some of the most productive crop lands in the US. I think they get too much water subsidies. If they had to pay for the real price of water (which they would decry as communism I am sure), there would be much better use of water resources. Crops like cotton should not be grown in California. Almonds, a tree that doesn't need a lot of water is a different story and that crop hasn't had that much of an impact. Even with the water restrictions, California agriculture is a powerhouse that is an envy of every other state out there.

We're aware of California's enviable agriculture, but what did he mean by them not being allowed to grow their own crops?

He was talking about the water restrictions in the Central Valley to protect the Delta smelt. I am a little ambivalent on that but the farmers need to practice better water conservation and choose their crops carefully. We can make this happen by making them pay the market price for water.

So maybe the CEO of Nestl'e was right in that water is a commodity to be owned and managed by rich people and not the Government?

Managed by the free market and not big government.

[hopper]

Why do voters approve of a millionares tax and a yes vote to borrow for education funding on a voter referendum? Phil Mickelson's(a famous golfer) tax rate is 63% when combining state and US taxes. Isn't that a little crazy?

That's not remotely crazy. What's crazy is the money he earns for playing golf while millions of real workers are struggling to stay afloat.

See that's the free market for you that's what they get paid I say good for them  because that's their market value. I'm low income myself I don't feel like the rich owe me anything. Michael Jordan and Karl Malone made millions during their basketball careers I say good for they should enjoy their money.

You should keep in mind very few people have that skill to be a professional sports player. That's why they get paid that money because that's their gif that they have. What are real workers? Everybody has a special skill that they have to work in a certain profession. One could be to play a sport the other could be to be a doctor.

[Sbane]

Yeah, California has no crops whatsoever. It's not as if 95% of strawberries and various nuts are grown in California. Oranges don't grow there either. There isn't a huge trade of California grown rice going to Japan. The Napa valley wine industry is not real, just a part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

Seriously though, California had some of the most productive crop lands in the US. I think they get too much water subsidies. If they had to pay for the real price of water (which they would decry as communism I am sure), there would be much better use of water resources. Crops like cotton should not be grown in California. Almonds, a tree that doesn't need a lot of water is a different story and that crop hasn't had that much of an impact. Even with the water restrictions, California agriculture is a powerhouse that is an envy of every other state out there.

We're aware of California's enviable agriculture, but what did he mean by them not being allowed to grow their own crops?

He was talking about the water restrictions in the Central Valley to protect the Delta smelt. I am a little ambivalent on that but the farmers need to practice better water conservation and choose their crops carefully. We can make this happen by making them pay the market price for water.

So maybe the CEO of Nestl'e was right in that water is a commodity to be owned and managed by rich people and not the Government?

He has his own interests at heart. I do think there need to be incentives to lower water use in the west, but it is most needed in the agriculture industry. I would also make golf courses pay market price, perhaps even higher than market price, for their water.