California has now been sentenced to DEATH

[Aunt Spiker]

A look at California's future is pretty grim, and ghost towns are going to come back to the state.

With Prop 23 being defeated leaving AB-32 to destroy the
Economy the rest of of the way and Prop -25 passing, we
have no real future to toward unless a real miracle takes place
and very soon.

The costs for a two worker family in the State will soon grow by as much as $15,000 or more per year, now and there seems to be no way to stop it.

Many may now be forced to look into moving to another State because there seems to be no way they can possibly manage to stay here with all the increased costs coming to every aspect of life here now.

The fools who bought the B.S. fell for the lies and even the cost of food is going to go up dramatically, to fix a problem that does not exist. It is all based on a the HOAX of Global Warming and the lies and fear worked.

This is going to be really bad and one of the goals is to drive people out of the suburbs and into cities.

California is pretty close to being in a tie with New York for having the worst business climate and it it just got a lot less friendly.

I wish I had answer to what we do now but I'm fresh out.

Part of the trouble coming here is the the push back that might come because of the voter fraud that took place with all the illegal who are free to vote in California no questions allowed to be asked.

I don't quite get your point.

Failure to pass Prop 23 merely left *in place* already existing measures. It didn't add anything, change anything - and all it was designed to do was undo things that have been in place in 2006.

I don't imagine that this one particular bill is what effected everyone and everything to the detriment of the state. In fact - a component of AB-32 actually protected the state from having to reimburse certain government components (as the state Constitution requires) - thus actually saving the state-government money in some areas.

There are several other areas of money-flushing that should be patched up, first, before trying to undo something that was started in response to federal mandates.

And, honestly, after reading more about Prop-23 in response to your post I actually find it disturbing that the only contributors to pushing and passing the bill were nothing but energy and oil companies.

If it was really a positive thing for the state - then wouldn't someone *other* than energy or oil companies be pushing for ending AB-32?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, California is doomed, but we don't know how we will be able to tell when its doom arrives.

 

[Diogenes]

So, California is doomed, but we don't know how we will be able to tell when its doom arrives.

We will know when the new Chinese owners arrive to take possession of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

 

[Wiseone]

We will know when the new Chinese owners arrive to take possession of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

You make it sound like the Chinese Navy is going to sail into those habours and plant a flag.

If you were chinese you'd be argueing this picture was proof of an American takeover of the Chinese auto market.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We will know when the new Chinese owners arrive to take possession of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

When will this happen?
And if it doesn't, then the premise of the thread is false?

 

[Diogenes]

You make it sound like the Chinese Navy is going to sail into those habours and plant a flag.

Actually, I picture it as more of a foreclosure operation kind of like the video that ends with "Now they work for us."

 

[Kushinator]

Please, are you kidding me? Productivity trap?/

Tim-

Research downward nominal wage rigitities and then get back to me.

 

[Wiseone]

Actually, I picture it as more of a foreclosure operation kind of like the video that ends with "Now they work for us."

Except its the exact opposite. The Chinese require an extreme amount of growth, almost 8% a year, to provide employment for their growing population. And to get that kind of growth they have to export, export, export, since the Chinese rely so much on cheap labor they cannot possibility rely on their own people to consume all the products they produce. Even if the average Chinese person made enough make to buy his "share" of his nation's production, thus keeping those producers including himself, employed, there's no way they'd even need that amount of stuff.

In other words, the Chinese economy runs off Demand. They need Demand to justify and afford their level of productive, thus their level of employment, thus their social stability. Of course we know about how much the American economy depends on China as well.

Its double edge sword, both America and China depend on each other greatly for their economic success. So no, China is not going to foreclose the United States and remove its largest trading partner.

 

[TurtleDude]

Realistically the problem with California is the spending with out the taxation part, people are voting for all sorts of new programs, but not voting to pay for thoe programs causing the government to borrow money

Moonbeam wants to give illegals free college. WTH should taxpayers in more sane states have to bail out California for that sort of idiocy.

 

[Wiseone]

Moonbeam wants to give illegals free college. WTH should taxpayers in more sane states have to bail out California for that sort of idiocy.

Because its in the Constitution? Or is that an inconvenience now?

I'm pretty sure its Constitutional for the Federal government to spend its tax revenue in states and areas other than where it came from. But hey what do I know, its just been that way since the thing came into existence.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because its in the Constitution? Or is that an inconvenience now?

I'm pretty sure its Constitutional for the Federal government to spend its tax revenue in states and areas other than where it came from. But hey what do I know, its just been that way since the thing came into existence.

I don't think there is any requirement that the federal government bail out irresponsible states

point me to the clause that requires it

 

[Hicup]

Research downward nominal wage rigitities and then get back to me.

I don't need to research economic theory, I'm living it, sunshine. It doesn't change my own little theory about what's really going on.


Tim-

 

[Wiseone]

I don't think there is any requirement that the federal government bail out irresponsible states

point me to the clause that requires it

Irresponsible is a point of opionion, and again the Federal government has broad freedoms in how it spends its tax and borrowed dollars. Regarding irresponsibility, the state of Ohio has suffered since the auto industry and heavy manufactoring industry has declined in the US. Couldn't you argue its irresponsible for Ohio to have allowed that or to have not done more to prevent it?

And I'm pretty damn sure thatFederal policy since 1776, even before the Constitution, has been to keep the Union together. Thats not every well accomplished by hanging a state fallen on hard times out to dry.

Why don't you find where Congress has NO power to spend money in a state with this situation?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Moonbeam wants to give illegals free college. WTH should taxpayers in more sane states have to bail out California for that sort of idiocy.

The Supreme Court Ruling of Plyler V Doe (1982) is what made it legal - and what defined the nature in which - states could/should let children of illegals attend public school.
The case was brought up in 1977 from the state of Texas - not California.

Summary of Ruling:
Summary - Plyler vs. Doe - 1982

Full Opinion and Ruling:
Plyler v. Doe

the Supreme Court has thus removed any state's power to *protect itself* from the expenses that come from *illegals being there* - and have encouraged public-school attendance by said illegal-offspring.

If they're permitted and even required to attend public school - then it's just a no-brainer that they would, eventually, broaden the horizon to include college.

If you want to rebute this - argue with the Supreme Court and have it overturned.
Which would mean, first, having to overturn the 14th Amendment - since that's what this ruling leaned on heavily for support.

 

[TurtleDude]

Irresponsible is a point of opionion, and again the Federal government has broad freedoms in how it spends its tax and borrowed dollars. Regarding irresponsibility, the state of Ohio has suffered since the auto industry and heavy manufactoring industry has declined in the US. Couldn't you argue its irresponsible for Ohio to have allowed that or to have not done more to prevent it?

And I'm pretty damn sure thatFederal policy since 1776, even before the Constitution, has been to keep the Union together. Thats not every well accomplished by hanging a state fallen on hard times out to dry.

Why don't you find where Congress has NO power to spend money in a state with this situation?

the duty is not on me to prove the power doesn't exist but rather on you to prove that it properly does

 

[TurtleDude]

The Supreme Court Ruling of Plyler V Doe (1982) is what made it legal - and what defined the nature in which - states could/should let children of illegals attend public school.
The case was brought up in 1977 from the state of Texas - not California.

Summary of Ruling:
Summary - Plyler vs. Doe - 1982

Full Opinion and Ruling:
Plyler v. Doe

there are lots of SC decisions that I disagree with.

 

[Wiseone]

I don't think there is any requirement that the federal government bail out irresponsible states

point me to the clause that requires it

I'd also argue that the Commerce Clause and Section 9 Article 1 give Congress the authority if not the responsibility to do exactly that.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

there are lots of SC decisions that I disagree with.

Same here!
But the fingers must point in the right direction.

Texas *did not* go to the SCOTUS to achieve this ruling. . . they were terrible *very terribly pissed* with the outcome. . . it was shocking:
Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiseone]

Moonbeam wants to give illegals free college. WTH should taxpayers in more sane states have to bail out California for that sort of idiocy.

the duty is not on me to prove the power doesn't exist but rather on you to prove that it properly does

I don't think there is any requirement that the federal government bail out irresponsible states

point me to the clause that requires it

You made the first post at the bottom of page 6, and so far have failed to back it up. Now unequal spending amongt the states has existed since 1776. I don't think its possible to argue that at any time all states have recieved the same amount of money they paid into Congress, back from Congress.

I'm simply asking you to back up your statement that there's no clause that requires the Congress to "bailout" California.

 

[Wiseone]

there are lots of SC decisions that I disagree with.

But according to the Constitution its the Supreme Law of the Land. But are you just going to ignore it since you disagree with it?

 

[TurtleDude]

I'd also argue that the Commerce Clause and Section 9 Article 1 give Congress the authority if not the responsibility to do exactly that.

not as intended but FDR turned the CC into a carte blanche for congressional power.

 

[TurtleDude]

But according to the Constitution its the Supreme Law of the Land. But are you just going to ignore it since you disagree with it?

this is a discussion board where I note what I disagree with

and its obvious that much of what the supreme court does is political rather than honest jurisprudence

for example explain Schechter Poultry which struck down much of the NRA (New Deal) and then the USSC after FDR threatened to pack the court then completey ignored its own precedent and started allowing clear violations of procedural equal protection, due process and the tenth amendment.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But according to the Constitution its the Supreme Law of the Land. But are you just going to ignore it since you disagree with it?

The Supreme Court can overrule and reverse it's rulings - and in order to protect our Constitution and our country we have our series of checks and balances.

Nothing is absolute - the Constitution can be Amendent and Congress can be upended.

 

[Wiseone]

not as intended but FDR turned the CC into a carte blanche for congressional power.

Well according the the Constitution the SCOTUS determines whats Constitutional and what isn't, and since that hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet it must still be Constitutional.

 

[Wiseone]

this is a discussion board where I note what I disagree with

and its obvious that much of what the supreme court does is political rather than honest jurisprudence

for example explain Schechter Poultry which struck down much of the NRA (New Deal) and then the USSC after FDR threatened to pack the court then completey ignored its own precedent and started allowing clear violations of procedural equal protection, due process and the tenth amendment.

I'd agree much of what they've done has been political, but its still the Supreme law of the land according to the Constitution and therefore is legal.