Welcome to Thunderdome

Stop letting the illegal mexicans over the border to pick your produce for slave wages. There, reparations.

GORDON wrote: Stop letting the illegal mexicans over the border to pick your produce for slave wages. There, reparations.

I mean, you have an extremely solid point there. While CA allows corporations and the rich to use illegal labor cheaply, it makes tax payers fund those illegals living in the U.S.

Leisher wrote:

GORDON wrote: Stop letting the illegal mexicans over the border to pick your produce for slave wages. There, reparations.

I mean, you have an extremely solid point there. While CA allows corporations and the rich to use illegal labor cheaply, it makes tax payers fund those illegals living in the U.S.

Last I checked CA pays our share of state and federal taxes to support those people. Actually we pay more than our share, our money also goes off to those lazy, non working folks in states like Louisiana, Missippi, and Alabama. I would prefer it stayed in California and supported my hard working amigos.

Troy wrote:

Leisher wrote:

GORDON wrote: Stop letting the illegal mexicans over the border to pick your produce for slave wages. There, reparations.

I mean, you have an extremely solid point there. While CA allows corporations and the rich to use illegal labor cheaply, it makes tax payers fund those illegals living in the U.S.

Last I checked CA pays our share of state and federal taxes to support those people. Actually we pay more than our share, our money also goes off to those lazy, non working folks in states like Louisiana, Missippi, and Alabama. I would prefer it stayed in California and supported my hard working amigos.

The taxes thing goes both ways, and incidentally, the "more than your fair share" that you pay is thanks to your state, not the feds. We all pay the same amount to the feds (unless you're Trump). So no worries! A good portion of your tax money is staying right there in CA where you want it!

It'd be great if your hard working amigos would learn the language and start filing for citizenship, but let's be clear, the corporations and rich folk don't want them to do that because then they'd have to give them real pay and benefits. It's interesting because the Dems want to make them citizens as they want those votes. Notice how nobody is in a hurry to boot them out of the country, but whenever fast tracks to citizenship are brought up that gets shot down by people not pushing for them to be deported.

Also, while I totally agree that the majority of illegals coming here are good people looking for better lives, willing to work for it, and they are EXACTLY who we should want to immigrate here, I do not think ALL are hard working or good people. I also don't think ALL unemployed southerners are lazy, although I think it's fair to say that if being lazy wasn't in their genes then maybe slavery wouldn't have happened and they would have risen again...

Leisher wrote: We all pay the same amount to the feds (unless you're Trump).

Nope, the rich pay more, and CA has more rich.

TheCatt wrote: Nope, the rich pay more

1. That's not what I'm told all the time by certain activists.
2. I'm discussing citizen by citizen. A household making X in Kentucky is paying the same as a household in CA also making X. Loopholes and whatnot aside.

Leisher wrote: A household making X in Kentucky is paying the same as a household in CA also making X. Loopholes and whatnot aside.

Right, but
CA median income: $75k
KY median income: $50k

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: A household making X in Kentucky is paying the same as a household in CA also making X. Loopholes and whatnot aside.

Right, but
CA median income: $75k
KY median income: $50k

And the cost of living reflects that as well.

And none of this has anything to do with how illegals are used like modern day slaves and the possible payment of reparations.

Leisher wrote: And the cost of living reflects that as well.

But the taxes don't.

TheCatt wrote: the taxes don't.

I'd say they do considering all the additional state taxes and fees on everything out there.

One of the reasons my company moved out of CA was due to the insane taxes and regulations being imposed upon not only their plant, but also on everything about their business. I guess they should have hired illegals to offset those costs.

Leisher wrote: Loopholes

We need another filter/macro.

Saw this story linked by someone on FB.

CA gov wants folks to wear their masks between bites.

If this is really necessary, then why are restaurants even open for dine in? It clearly isn't safe.

I don't know who Joe Collins is, but he would get my vote based on this alone.

Leisher wrote: I don't know who Joe Collins is, but he would get my vote based on this alone.

When it comes to Congress, federal law only requires members live in the same state as the district.

I did not know that.

Apparently a lot of this comes from redistricting: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol ... story.html

Why would any rich politician want to live in a poor district?

TheCatt wrote: When it comes to Congress, federal law only requires members live in the same state as the district.

Doesn't matter if it's ok by the rules or not, it's something that Joe believes is important and I'm sure he's not alone.

Maybe this is a rule that we should revisit? Seems like it shouldn't be fine for someone to live in Northern California yet be able to represent a district in San Diego. (That's not what is happening, just pointing out the extremes the law allows.)

Granted, we could argue this down to living on the same street as someone you represent, but I think we can take it down to municipalities without being assholes about it. Seems like someone would fight harder to improve the property values and lives of the one's in their own community than ones far away.

Leisher wrote: Doesn't matter if it's ok by the rules or not, it's something that Joe believes is important and I'm sure he's not alone

It would seem logical. But I best a lot of those districts are pretty close to each other.

TheCatt wrote: But I best a lot of those districts are pretty close to each other.

Very likely, but that doesn't mean they aren't vastly different. There's a suburb here that's smackdab in the middle of the metropolitan area that is very well off. It borders several areas that are far worse off than the residents within the suburb.

There can be really nice areas and really bad ones within the territory of a single district, so I don't see why we can't change the rule. Plus, we know one of two things will happen anyway:
1. They will redraw district lines to give themselves places to live.
2. They will maintain two homes.

Leisher wrote: 1. They will redraw district lines to give themselves places to live.

Federal Congress people are at the mercy of State congresspeople for that, afaik.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: 1. They will redraw district lines to give themselves places to live.

Federal Congress people are at the mercy of State congresspeople for that, afaik.

But they all work together. Two parties!