The Goat Pen

Somehow it just doesn't square with your doomsday scenario.

Incorrect. The term "doomsday scenario" refers to a future that hasn't happened yet, and maybe never will. But all the economic facts I posted about CA happen to be true right now. They've already happened. Not a single future tense in there at all.

Here is an article about the 144 corporations that had left CA by 2010:

‘Leaving Cal.’ list grows to 144 firms

Irvine consultant Joe Vranich, who has been compiling a list of companies leaving California because of the state’s anti-business environment, is now up to 144 companies that have departed in 2010, including 34 in Orange County.

In addition, he lists 51 companies (8 from Orange County) that left in 2009. That three-fold increase, Vranich says, is the tip of the iceberg that is California’s financial woes.

“Quite clearly, the exodus of businesses out of California continues. It makes sense for companies to reduce their California footprint considering the ample supply of attractive, lower-cost alternative locations. Unless California reduces its hostility toward business, we will see more commercial enterprises seeking friendlier locations in which to relocate entirely or at least place facilities there that used to be located here.”

Among the Orange County companies new to his list are Boeing, Kennametal Inc., Latex International, Multi-Fineline Elextronix Inc., NGK Spark Plug Co., Smith Micro Software Inc. and Witt Heat Transfer Products Group, most of which have been previously reported by the Register.

Which locations are benefiting from California’s exodus? Vranich says in a Fox&Hounds article:

Texas
Arizona
Colorado
Nevada
Virginia
Utah
Other countries

http://jan.blog.ocregister.com/2010/09/ ... rms/45696/

Hang ten, brah.

More:

Northrop move worsens Southern California's Fortune-500 brain drain

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_c ... on-to.html

Damn that Governor Reagan.

144? In a state the size of California, that's not much. I thought you were going to say 700 to 800. Reminds me of the insurance companies that threatened to leave California some 15 to 20 years ago. Some left, then realized that the California market was too big for them to leave. A few years ago, some of the insurance companies wanted to increase their rates in Texas due to damage to the Gulf Coast due to Hurricanes Ike and Katrina. Texas commissioner of Insurance refused and they threatened to leave. Texas response? That's your choice. Like California, too large to leave.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ex-r ... ction.html

Ex-Republicans claim Fla. GOP suppressed Democratic vote


Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer has been claiming for months that state party members engineered a new law to suppress voter turnout, falsely touting voter fraud concerns to advance their mission. Now, other former Republicans and consultants are backing Greer up, The Palm Beach Post reports.

Greer, who is under indictment and accused of funneling campaign funds from the Republican Party, has been claiming that state Republicans supported a law (HB 1355)—which, in part, curtailed early voting—simply as a means to stymie the Democratic vote.

Staff and consultants "never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer told the newspaper. "It's all a marketing ploy."

Former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, GOP consultant Wayne Bertsch and one unnamed consultant now tell the newspaper that state Republicans and consultants were actively seeking ways to suppress Democratic turnout following the 2008 election.

"I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves," the anonymous longtime GOP consultant told the newspaper.

State officials continue to discredit Greer as a disgruntled former Republican. Greer, in a deposition filed against the party this summer, accused leaders of working to suppress black turnout and made other damning claims.

Crist is also regarded as an enemy of the GOP following his party switch, his decision to back President Barack Obama for re-election this year, and his subsequent attacks on his former party. This past summer, Crist lambasted the Florida GOP for backing new laws that applied more restrictive voter ID requirements.

Republicans claim that Greer was not privy to the alleged meetings, that the discussions that he claimed took place never happened, and that the GOP did not seek to suppress turnout—a potentially illegal act.

When you find 59 precincts without a single Dim. Vote, get back to me.

hedge wrote:I trust my eyes more than your math...

Part of the reason that math major graduates are getting even MORE job opportunities in this new economy that your average Comp Sci grad is that there is virtually NOTHING (no industry today that demands automation for efficency sake) in this new economy that doesn't demand pure mathematics. Be is baseball with Sabermetrics to measuring risk on Wall Street with Mortgage Backed Securities, math majors are being shown the money. And the damage THEY do to the livelihoods of everyone else NOT mathematically inclined, is legion. Its haunting, mostly because pure numbers expose a very simple reality that politicians do their utmost to hide for fear that those numbers will cost them their careers (and rightly so.)

In discussing California (a place where you say everyone looks happy) you say you trust your eyes more than you do my math. Okay fine. I trust my math that looks at cities bankrupting mostly because they can't print money to pay civil servant pensions and healthcare the way the Fed can.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/11/t ... ankruptcy/

MATH is fixing everything (things that Democrats who have made promises that taxpayers can't keep refuse to fix.) I wonder how "happy" the people look in San Bernadino right now? Probably as happy as the average resident in Stockton. I suppose you could find people walking up and down the street with big shit eating grins on their faces but I'll tell you who isn't happy and that is the San Bernadino bond holders who just got reamed in the ass.

Lets sidebar California and turn to our President's home state of Illinois. In the city of Chicago, 80% of the students that live inside the city limits in the public school system get free lunch.

80%.

I want you to think about that for a moment, 400,000+ of the 480,000 public school students in the city of Chicago getting lunch for free. They qualify purely based on household income levels being low enough to qualify (and yet, they can afford to live IN the city of Chicago.)

Hedge, I can't afford to live in the city of Chicago. There is no way on Earth I could afford to pay the mortgage payment on a house the size that I have here in Scottsdale, if it existed on land inside the city boundaries of Chicago. My salary is not that large. And yet my kids would never-EVER qualify for free lunch (here or in Chicago) on my salary. Tell me Hedge, where am I doing my math wrong? Why is it that 400,000+ kids can live in households in Chicago and yet, not pay one thin dime or lunch?

You and I both know the answer here. And that answer might just have something to do with why you might see so many happy faces in California (afterall you trust your own eyes and not my math.)

goldenbear?

hedge wrote:"If uncertainty isn't removed, he said, "people will sit on their war chests of cash and return it to shareholders."

If uncertainty isn't removed?? LMAO. Uncertainty is a part of life. If you want certainty, go into the mathematics field. Investment is all about risk. Always has been, always will be. Kinda funny listening to all these supposedly anti-government "conservatives" whine about the government not providing "certainty". So now the government it supposed to be the Final Insurer against all "uncertainty"?? And this from people who ostensibly were against all the bailouts? Again, LMFAO. Grow a pair or get out of the game....

C'mon Hedge. You know exactly what I am talking about and what you said above ain't it.

I'm talking about the thousands of regs that have yet to be written on Opramacare, the YEARLY tax issues that could easily be resolved by making things permanent (pending a different congress of course) versus a year extension (be they higher or lower at least you'd know and could plan), fiscal cliff, etc.

I'm not talking about guaranteeing anything. There is a hyper-elevated level of uncertainty right now largely due to govt action/inaction.

Professor Tiger wrote:

CRA got through in the 1970s. The GOP could not stop it. When Clinton was elected and got it going again full speed in 1993, the GOP could not stop it. Try addressing that point.

I will gladly address that point. The Republican George W. Bush was president from 2001-2008. The R's held control of the Senate from 1995-2001, and from 2003-2007. The R's held control of the House from 1995-2007. So if, during their 6- 8 year span of rule, the R's wanted to undo CRA and all its spinoff craziness, the D's could not have stopped it.

That is only true if you could have used reconciliation which I don't know if you could have.

And of course you have to be in office to be able vote for or against anything. Any change that would have made it harder for poorer folk (aka minorities as the media spins it) to qualify for loans would have been absolutely crucified by the media as racist this and racist that.

Of course they still could have done something about the repackaging of mortgages etc. For example how would things have been different is the law required the lending bank to hold onto a loan for 5 years before it could be sold to another bank? I imagine the banks would have been a LOT more concerned about ability to repay and more diligent about applications etc. What say you punks?

hedge wrote:"Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin Coolidge."

And almost as charismatic and inspiring as Coolidge, too...

Thanks TV.

Biggest Black Friday EVER! Biggest Cyber Monday EVER (28% over last year)!

sorry...let us return to Days of Our Sucky Lives

That is only true if you could have used reconciliation which I don't know if you could have.

That's only true if the Dems during those time periods were filibustering everything the way Republicans have been doing since President Obama was first elected in 2008. As it turns out, they weren't. The filibuster was not used all that much under the Dems and there is little evidence out there (if any at all) that the Republicans couldn't have put in place reforms, relaxation of the CRA.

bluetick wrote:Biggest Black Friday EVER! Biggest Cyber Monday EVER (28% over last year)!

sorry...let us return to Days of Our Sucky Lives

But when all is said and done, there will be a retraction in the last quarter due to Hurricane Sandy

bluetick wrote:Biggest Black Friday EVER! Biggest Cyber Monday EVER (28% over last year)!

sorry...let us return to Days of Our Sucky Lives

Since you like quoting numbers....

The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving, which equals approximately $211.69 for each of the nation’s 114,916,000 households.

At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85.

Toemeesleather wrote:
The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving, which equals approximately $211.69 for each of the nation’s 114,916,000 households.

At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85.

Hmmm. So either we reduce the debt or we increase the number of households..

disband the Border Patrol!!

bluetick wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:
The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving, which equals approximately $211.69 for each of the nation’s 114,916,000 households.

At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85.

Hmmm. So either we reduce the debt or we increase the number of households..

disband the Border Patrol!!

Why can't you take a serious situation seriously?

Snark for the sake of snark deligitimizes the one using the snarky fun. With each response like that, you further and further decrease my willingness to try and explain anything to you because (by your own action) you have demonstrated that you are not a serious person. Everything that you can't debate (and win) or reframe is nothing but a joke to you. That is the sarcasm people grow to expect of their grown, juvinile delinquint, children.

innocentbystander wrote:

bluetick wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:
The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving, which equals approximately $211.69 for each of the nation’s 114,916,000 households.

At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85.

Hmmm. So either we reduce the debt or we increase the number of households..

disband the Border Patrol!!

Why can't you take a serious situation seriously?

Snark for the sake of snark deligitimizes the one using the snarky fun. With each response like that, you further and further decrease my willingness to try and explain anything to you because (by your own action) you have demonstrated that you are not a serious person. Everything that you can't debate (and win) or reframe is nothing but a joke to you. That is the sarcasm people grow to expect of their grown, juvinile delinquint, children.

I was having a bit of low hilarity with my friend toe, Generalissimo. Kindly take a seat and someone will be along to take your statement shortly.

As any good corporation would tell you, debt is only a problem if you can't service your debt (there are businesspeople that take on debt to offset some other income for example). Right now, our debt is not a problem. Countries are actually buying our debt as a matter of choice right now. We don't have a short-term debt problem, we have a long-term debt problem, with projections being extreme. The biggest culprits in terms of size, medicare, medicaid, social security and military expenditures. Medicaid is actually one of the most efficient health care programs out there. Social Security under Reagan increased taxes to pay for this time period (of the baby boomers). While that money was used for other things, social security is still safe for about 30 years.

The biggest problems are the military and medicare. The military spent money on two wars and didn't even include their costs in the budget. That's a huge backlog of money. Our military budget drawfs every other country in the world. Medicare is only solvent for about 12 years. It's a 300,000 gift transfer to seniors. But of the programs mentioned, which is the one most likely to get attacked? The one with the least influential voters, medicaid (even though it's the most efficient of all the ones mentioned). Despite rhetoric, generally, the poor don't vote and don't have a big lobbiest.

They need long term solutions, not short term that actually makes it worse. Watch. When companies start cutting their research budget, those are companies on the downslide. When things tight, you increase your research budget, not decrease it.

Owlman wrote:As any good corporation would tell you, debt is only a problem if you can't service your debt (there are businesspeople that take on debt to offset some other income for example). Right now, our debt is not a problem. Countries are actually buying our debt as a matter of choice right now. We don't have a short-term debt problem, we have a long-term debt problem, with projections being extreme. The biggest culprits in terms of size, medicare, medicaid, social security and military expenditures. Medicaid is actually one of the most efficient health care programs out there. Social Security under Reagan increased taxes to pay for this time period (of the baby boomers). While that money was used for other things, social security is still safe for about 30 years.

The biggest problems are the military and medicare. The military spent money on two wars and didn't even include their costs in the budget. That's a huge backlog of money. Our military budget drawfs every other country in the world. Medicare is only solvent for about 12 years. It's a 300,000 gift transfer to seniors. But of the programs mentioned, which is the one most likely to get attacked? The one with the least influential voters, medicaid (even though it's the most efficient of all the ones mentioned). Despite rhetoric, generally, the poor don't vote and don't have a big lobbiest.

They need long term solutions, not short term that actually makes it worse. Watch. When companies start cutting their research budget, those are companies on the downslide. When things tight, you increase your research budget, not decrease it.

LMAO, the media has taught you well.