Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2014, 03:10:53 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: California hopes to close large deficit by cutting taxes for large corporations  (Read 2941 times)
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« on: February 14, 2009, 01:08:29 pm »
Ignore

Thanks to the bipartisan compromise being floated. Of course it'll only get a handful of Republican votes anyways. Republicans are such a joke. I was in favor of some sort of pragmatic compromise, but this is ridiculous.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget-taxbreaks14-2009feb14,0,1807568.story?track=rss
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2009, 01:26:02 pm »
Ignore

Thanks our disgusting proposition process where people vote on individual laws based off of 30 second sound bytes, it's impossible to pass any sort of bill without eighty thousand individual compromises and perks to reach that sixty-six percentage mark, usually with education suffering the most.


Are the tax cuts temporary
Ah, they're permanent so they require a three fourths, two thirds majority or whatever to reduce in the future?

I might support these tax cuts depending on how they interact with our deficit and our stimulus package, too lazy to look up
« Last Edit: February 14, 2009, 01:36:21 pm by Lunar »Logged

this is real
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2009, 01:33:07 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Under the proposed changes, companies would no longer be required to pay state taxes based on a formula that includes the size of their workforce, the amount of property they own and their total California sales. Instead, they could pay based on total state sales alone. The idea, supporters say, is to stop penalizing companies for expanding their workforces and building new facilities in California. Under current law, the companies' state tax bills grow when they do those things.

I don't know about property, but that makes sense to reduce the cost of hiring new workers.

but then you have this:
Quote
He said that in California the technology industry has been far slower to rebound from the dot-com bust earlier this decade than it has in states that have made the changes lawmakers are considering.

But a study by the Center on Budget Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank, concluded that the cost of the tax break has far outweighed the job-creation benefits in states where it has been instituted. The center researches how tax policies affect low-income Americans. The study said many companies were using the tax formula to lower their tax bills without doing anything they wouldn't normally do to create new jobs.

Other experts have said the change could also mean that companies that put a heavy burden on -- and extract substantial benefit from -- state services won't be paying their full share for them.

A study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, released in 2005, found that most companies decide where to locate based not on tax breaks but on factors such as the availability of a highly educated workforce. California's proposed plan would cut spending on higher education by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sigh
Logged

this is real
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2009, 01:49:36 am »
Ignore

I might support these tax cuts depending on how they interact with our deficit and our stimulus package, too lazy to look up

I'm pretty sure it would be better for the economy if the sales tax was increased by $1 billion less a year.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2009, 02:45:51 am »
Ignore

This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2009, 02:47:26 am »
Ignore

Better than the Rustbelt even if we are politically impotent
Logged

this is real
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2009, 03:02:19 am »
Ignore

I think the legislature is still trying to pass a budget RIGHT NOW. Well, I guess it only makes sense that they'd be meeting at midnight on a weekend on Valentines Day when they're 7 1/2 months late.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2009, 03:04:28 am »
Ignore

Better than the Rustbelt even if we are politically impotent

Nope.  You have too many illegals and people dependent on the state government (among other problems).  That's just a powder keg waiting to go off.  Rustbelt states don't have either of those problems as much. (e.g. Michigan)

When TSHTF, you want to be in a fairly homogenous society with shared values, above all.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13453


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2009, 03:05:47 am »
Ignore

This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2009, 03:25:39 am »
Ignore

This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2009, 03:29:16 am »
Ignore

See, the lack of compromise and the 2/3rds budget requirement (which is pre Prop 13) is really a problem. You just said a bunch of things that would piss of the left, but guess what, you said "REPEAL PROP 13". The Republican party is threatening to primary any member who even votes for one tax increase, so saying "REPEAL PROP 13" is like saying 'I'M A COMMUNIST MEMBER OF AL QAEDA" to them.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13453


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2009, 03:50:12 am »
Ignore

This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.

Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is. I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich. And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates. And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any. As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay. And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything. Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2009, 05:19:35 am »
Ignore

Everyone sane hates Prop 13 and it is 99.99% of the reason why California is impotent/sucks/is lame/has a bad economy.

too bad propostions are so populust

Better than the Rustbelt even if we are politically impotent

Nope.  You have too many illegals and people dependent on the state government (among other problems).  That's just a powder keg waiting to go off.  Rustbelt states don't have either of those problems as much. (e.g. Michigan)

When TSHTF, you want to be in a fairly homogenous society with shared values, above all.

Well, you're basically right with your additional posts.  At least Prop 13 has an infinitely higher chance, however small, of  being reversed, than some company like Chrysler becoming successful.

I try not to be too dismal on our state, but yes, I'm trying to figure out how to bail ASAP


Prop 13 is the very reason why California's economy sucks.  It is the most prevalent demonstration in Earth as to why direct democracy is not a viable alternative.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 05:23:30 am by Lunar »Logged

this is real
Ronnie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4829
United States
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2009, 12:32:29 pm »
Ignore

Proposition 13 is the most retarded proposition to ever come up in our state.  As Lunar said, everyone sane hates this proposition.
Logged

Born and raised in California
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2009, 12:42:56 pm »
Ignore

Proposition 13 is the most retarded proposition to ever come up in our state.  As Lunar said, everyone sane hates this proposition.

Everyone who knows anything hates it, but thanks to the John Birch Society and probably other crazies, it's impossible to repeal. 

It's the reason why many of our inner city schools are failing (the only way for counties to fund themselves is to collect property taxes on new development, can't do that in the inner city), the reason why we can't pass a budget or, when needed, raise certain taxes (hopefully at the expense of other taxes).

Warren Buffet's $500,000 home in Omaha had its property taxes increased by $1,920 in 2003. Meanwhile, the levy on Buffetts $4-million house in Laguna Beach, which he bought for less than $100,000 in 1971, rose by just $23.  How does that make sense? But the public likes knee-jerk ideas like "never raise taxes" and "cap property taxes" while at the same time they love to vote for propositions that require 40% of the state budget to be spent on education and %X to be spent on that, to the point that our budget is completely nonsensical before you even factor in that we need 2/3rds to pass.

I mean, the dumbest proposition on the ballot in 2008 was this one requiring chickens have enough space to turn around in their cages.  It's a law that makes complete sense, but not as a state law, since some segment of our egg marketshare will now move to neighboring states and Mexico.  Yet it's also the law that passed with the higher percentage.  I think all but like one proposition passed (correct me if I'm wrong) and in Berkeley every single one of our some dozen little measures passed.  I really think the public, especially in California, just likes to vote for stuff and it's destroying our state.

/rant


Logged

this is real
rob in cal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 649
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2009, 12:59:57 pm »
Ignore

   Concerning Prop. 13 I agree it is a crapshoot. My house is assessed at 2000 dollars in tax per year. If I sold it to someone else they'd now pay about 4,000.  Still, with all the new development over the years, plus the normal buying and selling of houses that goes on, I wonder how many people there are who are paying ridiculously low levels of property tax. I can think of a few people I know off hand, but lots of others who bought homes in the 90's and 2000's who are paying close to their assessed value.
    Personally, I'd be up for closing the school year a few months early, as my son who goes to public school would like to be home schooled which we do now with our daughter.  Of course I realize that would be a huge disaster for many people.  Also, what about emptying California's prisons of non-violent drug offenders, anyone in for sports bookmaking, things like that. Probably not many of them, but thats a little start.
    Agreed that its disturbing to have people vote on proposition issues when they know so little about whats involved.  I often ask co-workers and friends about what they are doing with propositions and am actually relieved that many who do vote actually take some time to study whats on the ballot, and many who are clueless don't vote anyway. I always tell people that if you know what you are doing on some issues but haven't studied up on all candidates or props to just vote what you know about.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2009, 01:16:39 pm »
Ignore

I actually like the proposition system for narrow areas, notably things the legislators won't do themselves - things like government transparency, term limits, salary caps, etc.  Even though I did of work for the No On 8 campaign, I don't mind that we lost because the overall campaign was so inept and inclusive and couldn't relate to what real people were thinking about the issue.

But how many people actually read the bill in question? How many people understand what a bond is?

Also, about your house, when do you think most people who own apartment buildings or towers bought their property?  And considering that property taxes is a key way to fund local schools.... and considering that also applies to megagiant CosCo's and Walmarts....  I'm not pro-tax, but I'm in favor of something sensible for property taxes if those are to be a key way our educational system functions -- as of now, the areas with constant development (suburbs) can fund the best schools.  Prop 13 dealt with a very serious issue -- seniors being taxed out of their homes they've lived in since forever.  But it dealt with that issue with a hatchet that destroyed California, instead of the scalpel that was needed.

I mean, California's legislature needs a check to avoid raising taxes.  I took a college class on the history of California a while back and my professor was explaining how they were once sending dollars to various corners of the state legislature room as a model to try and explain how the budget worked and no one could understand it.  It's a complete mess.

The public is never going to vote down more money for firefighters, veterans, chicken cages, or blind orphans who need love, but they're sure going to vote in favor of mandatory reduced taxes every time.  The basic desire of the public to have reduced taxes but increased social services in manifested in California's clusterf*** thanks to direct democracy Tongue
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 01:18:30 pm by Lunar »Logged

this is real
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2009, 02:19:06 pm »
Ignore

Still no budget. Our legislature is a total joke.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2009, 02:21:11 pm »
Ignore

Still no budget. Our legislature is a total joke.

They could pass one if we were a normal state
Logged

this is real
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2009, 02:22:20 pm »
Ignore

Still no budget. Our legislature is a total joke.

They could pass one if we were a normal state

True, the 2/3rds requirement is ridiculous. Well, not my fault, I was one of the 34.3% to vote for Prop. 56.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31655


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2009, 03:56:34 pm »
Ignore

The California Republican party is bent on destroying California. Even this crappy plan was way too much compromise for them.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15987


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2009, 12:21:22 am »
Ignore

This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.

Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is. I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich. And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates. And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any. As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay. And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything. Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?

If what Sam says is anything close to right, we could see a re-institution of the draft just to enforce martial law at home. Basically it'll be the end of this country as we know it.
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13453


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2009, 01:08:55 am »
Ignore

This is all really just "whistling around the graveyard", regardless of what you think of the plan.

Without huge fundamental changes to California's spending and taxing ways, the state is insolvent and will be insolvent in the future.  This year's stimulus bailout will probably get it through 2009, but I wouldn't be planning on similar such assistance in the future.

In all honesty, I would advise anyone who's presently there to get the hell out, because that is one state where I would not want to be when TSHTF.

So what would you do O great one? Repeal prop 13 immediately? Probably way too late for that.

Repeal Prop 13.  Start slicing and dicing through your massive public employment sector by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits or all of the above (that creation of California during the 1960s nearly bankrupted the state during mere 'recessions').  Cut the various "free" programs (welfare, health care, etc.) that California provides.  Although the business tax cuts proposed here are complete crap, taxes must be dealt with a way that encourages the middle class and businesses to return (I don't know the code that well, but I do know it - if I ran the state, I'd come up with ideas).  Although I won't address it now, California's infrastructure and energy system is a joke - there's definitely something to be tackled there.

This is for starters...

And lastly, it's time to start deporting the illegals.  They are a menace to the state's public assistance network (esp. education) and will likely be one heck of a civil unrest problem in the upcoming years, while adding little of value to the society at large.

Yes, I know.  It's tough.  And tougher than I've ever been in the past with regards to illegals, not to mention the other stuff.  But one of these days, in general, we're going to have to face reexamination of government and what it can and cannot provide (not to mention what it should).  We're trying to punt the question right now. 

I just would prefer not to see us have to answer these questions facing people outside unemployed, starving, angry, and everything that goes with that.

Yes, I know I'm starting to sound like a bit of a kook or something, maybe.  So be it.  The signs are far too clear.

Well I am glad you think prop 13 should be repealed as many of your ideology are too set in their way to admit what a disaster it is. I agree with you that cuts need to be made but taxes need to be raised too, preferably on the insanely rich. And no they won't leave California just because of that, its just way too nice here and they don't choose where they live based on tax rates. And if we have tax cuts it should be for the middle class and small businesses, although I doubt we can afford any. As for illegals, I would remind you that they do a lot of menial labor in California. If those jobs don't exist they will leave, but as long as the jobs are there they will stay. And their kids have just as much a right to an education as anybody else. I wish they were all legal and would pay income and payroll taxes, but honestly it wouldn't add up to much. They already do pay sales taxes so its not fair to say they don't pay anything. Also why would they cause civil unrest? They would just move on to somewhere with jobs, in fact many employed in the construction sector already have. California has many problems but I don't see illegals as being one of them, because somebody needs to do our sh**t work right?

If what Sam says is anything close to right, we could see a re-institution of the draft just to enforce martial law at home. Basically it'll be the end of this country as we know it.

Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15987


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2009, 01:23:02 am »
Ignore

Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?

Well it did on a smaller scale, if you look at the Bonus army disaster. But it's true that Americans were awfully quiescent during the Depression-- and maybe we'll be again. There was a good deal of ethnic diversity back then as well, and Californians have been living with each other for a long time-- even the illegals.

Anyway, I'm not predicting that we'll need that, but it seems like Sam is. Especially if he thinks it'd be easier to deport millions of illegals than allow them to stay. The former action itself would practically require a domestic military deployment.
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13453


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2009, 01:25:11 am »
Ignore

Huh? That didn't even occur during the great depression..why would we suddenly need that now?

Well it did on a smaller scale, if you look at the Bonus army disaster. But it's true that Americans were awfully quiescent during the Depression-- and maybe we'll be again. There was a good deal of ethnic diversity back then as well, and Californians have been living with each other for a long time-- even the illegals.

Anyway, I'm not predicting that we'll need that, but it seems like Sam is. Especially if he thinks it'd be easier to deport millions of illegals than allow them to stay. The former action itself would practically require a domestic military deployment.

I don't see why illegals would cause problems for no reason. They came to California to work and if there isn't any work, they will leave. It's those people who think society owes them something who are more dangerous.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines