Big Day for Californians

[adder70]

drbill once bubbled...
At least the Mexicans have an historic claim to most of "our" lands.

If US corporations (agribusiness, etc.) didn't need the labor these folks provide, perhaps the laws would be tightened. Until they are willing to forego larger profits (and value to their stockholders, us) and we (especially those posters railing against the Mexican laborers) are willing to pay higher prices for California agricultural products, you'll see market forces dictate the policy.

Dr. Bill

Actually, I believe the British have a legitimate claim to most of our lands. After all, the 13 colonies gained their independence via war, so perhaps the land should be ceded to Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal. THe Spanish would also have a legitimate claim to many of the lands now in Mexico. THe British would also have a legitimate claim to India and any of quite a few colonies that have since gained or been granted independence.

I would be quite willing to get rid of all of the "furriners" and would be perfectly willing to pay lower prices for produce grown elsewhere not subject to price controls as they are now to protect these same industries. The prices paid for California and Florida products is often significantly greater than the price of produce grown elsewhere. I know sugar cane is sold for roughly twice the price available on the international market, but subsidies are granted to keep the US cane industry afloat, and the profits from the subsidized sales are then funneled to the politicians responsible for the subsidy laws. (Oh, I'm sorry, I menat to their campaigns! :livid: )Then you get lower priced goods, and a healthier environment here due to less agricultural runoff, etc.

 

[JustAddWater]

There are arguments in Mexico over sovereignty rights and who holds claim to lands within Mexico.I don't buy into the "go back to where you came from argument" on either side, but California needs to address the growing population who do not pay in to the system and in fact are a draw on the economy as well as illegal aliens. There needs to be a way to legally process foreign workers, allowing them to earn a living, while still maintaining our borders IMO. The farm labor issue is probably going to eventually solve itself. All over California, farmers are selling there land because they can make a better profit. California also doesn't have the water resource to supply both ag and the growing population.

Also of interest; Mexico has stricter immigration and land ownership laws than the U.S.

Mexico 2nd largest income is from money earned in the US by its nationals that is sent back to Mexico.

 

[Mo2vation]

We just get our friends in No Cal to send down some more.

K

 

[RichLockyer]

mofosaurus once bubbled...
The US has colonized Mexico and those colonies are called California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas.

Not exactly... the Spanish took it from the natives (as they did Mexico), and the US took it from the Spanish. There were fewer than 15,000 non-native residents in the above territories when they were annexed by the US.

 

[RichLockyer]

Arnaud once bubbled...
So, in the case of gaming, the only way that the casinos could be actually taxed is if they would agree to it, as part of an agreement (compact) with the State. Obviously, they would have to get some benefits out of the deal... This is not just a matter of the government deciding unilaterally to raise or create new taxes.

Which would be fine... as Arnold suggested, they can pay taxes in exchange for more freedom to open more casinos.
He does not appear to be looking to break them. It seems that he is willing to allow them to do what they can to keep their own revenue constant (or even increase), while collecting more for the state.

History has shown that increases in taxes and social programs do not cause an economy to grow. From Pete Wilson to Stalin, such programs are ultimately doomed to collapse under their own weight.

A caller on a talk show said that she was going to vote to Cruz because he would create more state jobs. Okay... that lowers unemployment, but EVERYONE pays that salary... state and private employees both. That is the equivalent of everyone doing each other's dry cleaning. At the very BEST you have a stagnant economy. Government jobs do little to contribute to the economy by nature of them being service oriented by nature. The exception is jobs related to infrastructure, which will facilitate economic growth, but even there, the expenditures must be kept to a minimum.

 

[RichLockyer]

mofosaurus once bubbled...
we don't need more businesses, we need less people

We need more of the right kind of businesses. We need more producers and fewer providers/brokers.

 

[Arnaud]

RichLockyer once bubbled...
...History has shown that increases in taxes and social programs do not cause an economy to grow. From Pete Wilson to Stalin, such programs are ultimately doomed to collapse under their own weight...

I was going to start writing about John M. Keynes and the propensity to consume, the impact on demand and supply and "all that sort of things". I would have balanced the discussion with Milton Friedman's monetarism and argued against budget deficits. Finally, I would have concluded with the need to fight poverty, diseases and hunger, and the pursuit of happiness, which ultimately should be the goal of any public policy and is way too often forgotten.

Then I remembered this was the Scubaboard...

 

[drbill]

Somehow the post below registered twice.

Dr. Bill

 

[drbill]

Adder70- BIG difference between fighting for the independence of the lands you live and work on and seizing lands by military force. Since we bought the Louisiana Purchase I think the French lose any claim there (but not the native peoples who were on that land before the French).

Under this, the English would have no claim no India or any of its other colonies (unless obtained by consent). And we have no claim to our "colonies" (the ones we economically... and often militarily... dominate).

I sit obvious I'm still a 60's radical (but use modern SCUBA technology thankfully).

Dr. Bill

PS- I agree with you on the agrobusiness subsidies!

 

[mofosaurus]

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-808110-california_history-i


When Mexico gained its independence in 1821, in theory it also acquired control of California. However, Americans were already starting to arrive, despite the immense difficulty of getting to California – three months by sea via Cape Horn, or four months overland in a covered wagon. Though the non-native population was a mere ten thousand in 1846, the growing belief that it was the Manifest Destiny of the United States to cover the continent from coast to coast, evident in the aggressively imperial policies of President James K. Polk, soon led to the Mexican–American War. Virtually all the fighting took place in Texas; Monterey was captured by the US Navy without a shot being fired, and by January 1847 the Americans controlled the entire west coast. In 1850 California became the 31st US state.