Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Brilliant!!
This should attract companies to open or maintain businesses in California....
California Democrats pitch business tax hike following Trump's tax cut
Two Democratic state assemblymen want to raise the state’s business taxes in response to President Trump’s federal tax overhaul.
Assemblymen Kevin McCarty of Sacramento and Phil Ting of San Francisco introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 Thursday that would raise corporate taxes on California companies with revenues higher than $1 million. The state tax hike would be for an amount equivalent to half what they received from the federal tax cut.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...-pitch-business-tax-1516315691-htmlstory.html
This should attract companies to open or maintain businesses in California....
California Democrats pitch business tax hike following Trump's tax cut
Two Democratic state assemblymen want to raise the state’s business taxes in response to President Trump’s federal tax overhaul.
Assemblymen Kevin McCarty of Sacramento and Phil Ting of San Francisco introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 Thursday that would raise corporate taxes on California companies with revenues higher than $1 million. The state tax hike would be for an amount equivalent to half what they received from the federal tax cut.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...-pitch-business-tax-1516315691-htmlstory.html
Can't someone " Republican " run for Governor and get in to clean house.....The California Legislature is a cesspool of Greed and Criminal Corruption on a scale 100 times larger than Venezuela... It's sad to witness the demise of a beautiful area of Land due to Criminal
Democrats !
Sheriff Joe
DA
Uninvited Guest - Breitbart
by ANN COULTER 24 Jan 2018 COMMENTS ↓
Why does Sen. Lindsey Graham have a seat at the table on immigration? Are Jorge Ramos and Vicente Fox unavailable?
Graham’s claim to fame is: 1) having twice negotiated a voluntary surrender for the GOP on immigration; and 2) winning 0.00 percent of the vote when he ran for president two years ago.
You could run for president on the platform that we should kill babies and eat them, and you’d get more votes than Lindsey Graham. Who designated this most remote of back-benchers, thoroughly rejected by the American people, as the principal negotiator on Trump’s central campaign promise?
Graham’s thought process seems to be: We had an election, I ran for president; literally no one voted for me, so my views should prevail over the guy who won an Electoral College landslide.
How about getting Dennis Kucinich in there? Has anyone asked Martin O’Malley for help in the “DACA” negotiations?
To a rapturous media, Graham has been peddling the lie that President Trump blew up a beautiful bipartisan deal on immigration. It wasn’t “bipartisan,” except in the sense of being “angrily rejected by the voters.”
It’s the same deal that has gone down in flames at least twice before. It’s the same deal that has already destroyed the careers of Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Kirk and Gov. Jeb! Bush.
It’s the same deal President Bush tried to push through Congress in 2006 — with Graham’s support! — leading directly to the Republican wipeout in the midterm elections later that year. (Innumerable polls showed that the public hated Bush’s proposed amnesty even more than it hated the Iraq War.)
It’s the same deal that voters repudiated for approximately the 87th time when they made Donald Trump president (and — again — gave Lindsey Graham zero votes).
Notwithstanding the media’s phony polls showing 98.6 percent of voters wildly enthusiastic about amnesty for “Dreamers” — or “Nightmares,” as radio host Howie Carr calls them — every time the public gets its hands on an actual ballot, it votes for: less immigration, punishing employers who hire illegals, no government services for illegals, no driver’s licenses for illegals, no amnesty ever, English-only and Donald Trump.
What the media call a “bipartisan deal” didn’t even meet the basic definition of a “deal.”
For at least a decade now, the argument for amnestying the Nightmares has been: Screw the parents. THEY SUCK! They were the lawbreakers … but don’t blame the innocent children (single typewriter key) brought-here-through-no-fault-of-their-own.
Then we get to see the big bipartisan deal, and it’s: We amnesty the kids — but also the parents! Not only is this not meeting Trump halfway, it’s also doubling the distance.
It’s like negotiating in the Kasbah:
Democrats: We demand $30!
Republicans: We’ll give you $10.
Democrats: OK, $200.
Lindsey Graham: DEAL!
How did an existential issue for the Republican Party get assigned to the single worst person to negotiate it?
It would be as if during Bush’s presidency, anti-war Republican Chuck Hagel had anointed himself spokesman for the GOP on the Iraq War. Republicans would have gone nuts! They would have been screaming at the media, the Democrats and the president: DO NOT TALK TO CHUCK HAGEL!
The fact that Senate Republicans have not done this in the case of Graham and immigration makes me think the fix is in. If we had a party that was serious, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP would say, “That’s great that you and Jeff Flake have been having meetings, Lindsey, but you don’t speak for us.”
by ANN COULTER 24 Jan 2018 COMMENTS ↓
Why does Sen. Lindsey Graham have a seat at the table on immigration? Are Jorge Ramos and Vicente Fox unavailable?
Graham’s claim to fame is: 1) having twice negotiated a voluntary surrender for the GOP on immigration; and 2) winning 0.00 percent of the vote when he ran for president two years ago.
You could run for president on the platform that we should kill babies and eat them, and you’d get more votes than Lindsey Graham. Who designated this most remote of back-benchers, thoroughly rejected by the American people, as the principal negotiator on Trump’s central campaign promise?
Graham’s thought process seems to be: We had an election, I ran for president; literally no one voted for me, so my views should prevail over the guy who won an Electoral College landslide.
How about getting Dennis Kucinich in there? Has anyone asked Martin O’Malley for help in the “DACA” negotiations?
To a rapturous media, Graham has been peddling the lie that President Trump blew up a beautiful bipartisan deal on immigration. It wasn’t “bipartisan,” except in the sense of being “angrily rejected by the voters.”
It’s the same deal that has gone down in flames at least twice before. It’s the same deal that has already destroyed the careers of Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Kirk and Gov. Jeb! Bush.
It’s the same deal President Bush tried to push through Congress in 2006 — with Graham’s support! — leading directly to the Republican wipeout in the midterm elections later that year. (Innumerable polls showed that the public hated Bush’s proposed amnesty even more than it hated the Iraq War.)
It’s the same deal that voters repudiated for approximately the 87th time when they made Donald Trump president (and — again — gave Lindsey Graham zero votes).
Notwithstanding the media’s phony polls showing 98.6 percent of voters wildly enthusiastic about amnesty for “Dreamers” — or “Nightmares,” as radio host Howie Carr calls them — every time the public gets its hands on an actual ballot, it votes for: less immigration, punishing employers who hire illegals, no government services for illegals, no driver’s licenses for illegals, no amnesty ever, English-only and Donald Trump.
What the media call a “bipartisan deal” didn’t even meet the basic definition of a “deal.”
For at least a decade now, the argument for amnestying the Nightmares has been: Screw the parents. THEY SUCK! They were the lawbreakers … but don’t blame the innocent children (single typewriter key) brought-here-through-no-fault-of-their-own.
Then we get to see the big bipartisan deal, and it’s: We amnesty the kids — but also the parents! Not only is this not meeting Trump halfway, it’s also doubling the distance.
It’s like negotiating in the Kasbah:
Democrats: We demand $30!
Republicans: We’ll give you $10.
Democrats: OK, $200.
Lindsey Graham: DEAL!
How did an existential issue for the Republican Party get assigned to the single worst person to negotiate it?
It would be as if during Bush’s presidency, anti-war Republican Chuck Hagel had anointed himself spokesman for the GOP on the Iraq War. Republicans would have gone nuts! They would have been screaming at the media, the Democrats and the president: DO NOT TALK TO CHUCK HAGEL!
The fact that Senate Republicans have not done this in the case of Graham and immigration makes me think the fix is in. If we had a party that was serious, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP would say, “That’s great that you and Jeff Flake have been having meetings, Lindsey, but you don’t speak for us.”
Sheriff Joe
DA
How to shut a liberal up.
YouTube · Very Fake News
PREVIEW
5:15
Jordan Peterson on Tucker Carlson
10 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ikDP2W7ifC4&ved=0ahUKEwjS3eCTjvPYAhXE7IMKHZIzDBkQt9IBCHwwFA&usg=AOvVaw2sRD7DGAh2TDJe34zUnfW4
YouTube · Very Fake News
PREVIEW
5:15
Jordan Peterson on Tucker Carlson
10 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ikDP2W7ifC4&ved=0ahUKEwjS3eCTjvPYAhXE7IMKHZIzDBkQt9IBCHwwFA&usg=AOvVaw2sRD7DGAh2TDJe34zUnfW4
Sheriff Joe
DA
Why School Choice Will Continue to Grow in Popularity
TERESA MULL
School choice will grow in popularity as government schools continue to fail to meet the unique needs of families as well as burden taxpayers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...oice_will_continue_to_grow_in_popularity.html
TERESA MULL
School choice will grow in popularity as government schools continue to fail to meet the unique needs of families as well as burden taxpayers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...oice_will_continue_to_grow_in_popularity.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
'Horrible and disgusting': Democrats then and now
JANUARY 25, 2018
Apparently, what Democrats said one generation ago – or even eight years ago – is the stuff of white supremacist fever dreams in the present day.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/horrible_and_disgusting_democrats_then_and_now.html
JANUARY 25, 2018
Apparently, what Democrats said one generation ago – or even eight years ago – is the stuff of white supremacist fever dreams in the present day.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/horrible_and_disgusting_democrats_then_and_now.html
This is California government in a nutshell.
Bruddah IZ
DA
We May Finally See the End of Compulsory Union Dues
https://fee.org/articles/we-may-finally-see-the-end-of-compulsory-union-dues/
What the unions never get around to telling you is that absolutely nothing in right-to-work legislation or the Janus ruling would compel workers to leave their union or prevent new recruits from joining. It simply leaves the choice to the individual, as it should be.
When unions demand mandatory dues and fees, they’re tacitly admitting the service they provide in return isn’t valued by enough workers to make it economically viable. Likewise, when they insist government employee wages would plummet in the absence of a union, they’re simply confirming the workers are already earning more than their labors are actually worth on the open market.
https://fee.org/articles/we-may-finally-see-the-end-of-compulsory-union-dues/
What the unions never get around to telling you is that absolutely nothing in right-to-work legislation or the Janus ruling would compel workers to leave their union or prevent new recruits from joining. It simply leaves the choice to the individual, as it should be.
When unions demand mandatory dues and fees, they’re tacitly admitting the service they provide in return isn’t valued by enough workers to make it economically viable. Likewise, when they insist government employee wages would plummet in the absence of a union, they’re simply confirming the workers are already earning more than their labors are actually worth on the open market.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Second, the most productive subsidize the least productive, which essentially creates a similar free-rider problem that the compelled agency fees attempt to resolve. Those who receive the benefit of the negotiated wage but would receive less in a market environment are being subsidized by those who are more productive than their respective wage. In a sense, the least productive are free-riding off the most productive with an incentive to focus more on staying in the job rather than excelling in the job. This is a bit of a simplification, but the effect is there regardless.
Public sector jobs struggle to approximate equilibrium compared to their private sector counterparts, and in some instances, there are very few private sector jobs to compare wages against, such as public school jobs. Public sector unions tend to advocate pay structures which rely heavily on seniority and certain qualifications such as education. This is known as step-and-lane schedules. However, relying heavily on these two measures dismisses other relevant factors, such as quality of work, which may or may not correspond with seniority or education. Focusing on this type of pay structure, as advocated by public sector unions, tends to ignore more merit-focused alternatives and props up those who would thrive better under the step-and-lane scheme, such as those willing to endure a job rather than improve quality.
Public sector jobs struggle to approximate equilibrium compared to their private sector counterparts, and in some instances, there are very few private sector jobs to compare wages against, such as public school jobs. Public sector unions tend to advocate pay structures which rely heavily on seniority and certain qualifications such as education. This is known as step-and-lane schedules. However, relying heavily on these two measures dismisses other relevant factors, such as quality of work, which may or may not correspond with seniority or education. Focusing on this type of pay structure, as advocated by public sector unions, tends to ignore more merit-focused alternatives and props up those who would thrive better under the step-and-lane scheme, such as those willing to endure a job rather than improve quality.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Nice, "Corporate funded" piece. They have you convinced they wouldn't hold their ultimate advantage over your head if dealing solely as an individual. If you wanna research something research the working/living conditions of working people before unions fought for safety, decent pay, weekends, the 8 hour day, OT, etc. etc. etc.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Didnʻt read the article. As usual.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Isnʻt Sacramento looking to crash the cash party?
Sheriff Joe
DA
2 bucks over 10 years?
Breitbart? Sucker.
Double sucker.