Tea party in the Sonora: For the future of G.O.P. governance, look to Arizona

Excellent article illustrating just how broke the state government is, and how the Tea Party crazies have been running things further to the right.  The right wing is always crowing about self-reliance.  I hope they keep that in mind when Arizona comes begging for a bailout.

Tea party in the Sonora: For the future of G.O.P. governance, look to Arizona

Excellent article illustrating just how broke the state government is, and how the Tea Party crazies have been running things further to the right.  The right wing is always crowing about self-reliance.  I hope they keep that in mind when Arizona comes begging for a bailout.
Ah I think states like California, Nevada, Illinois, and New York will beat Arizona to the line of wanting a bailout. You say Arizona is moving further to the right Chucky but the truth is CA has been moving so far to the left they are broke! CA, NY, and Illinois are deep bule states. Nevada is the exception: they have a Republican Governor and a Dem Legislature.

I should also add there is only 2 states with a budget surplus(Montana and North Dakota) and Arkansas from what I know is even(i.e. deficit nuetral.)

I don't think the entire country takes its financial insolvency seriously.  The red state blue state mentality has to defer to national unity if we are to address these problems.

Ah I think states like California, Illinois, and New York will beat Arizona to the line of wanting a bailout. You say Arizona is moving further to the right Chucky but the truth is CA has been moving so far to the left they are broke! Look at those movie star liberals in CA. Never mind that CA, NY, and Illinois are deep bule states.


Movie star liberals...like Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Stephen Baldwin, Chuck Norris, Craig T. Nelson, Dennis Miller, and on and on  So once again, you gotta stop with this liberal media crap.  You think the people buying their kids Ferraris and BMWs to drive themselves to Beverly Hills High or shopping on Rodeo Drive are hell bent liberals?

I don't think the entire country takes its financial insolvency seriously.  The red state blue state mentality has to defer to national unity if we are to address these problems.
I edited my post so you may want to take a look. I don't want to look like a partisan.

Well I think the federal governent does take their debt problem seriously in the last year or so. The states aren't making enough revenues for a sustained budget so they have to make budget cuts due to the unemployment rate. Its either that or raise taxes.

Movie star liberals...like Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Stephen Baldwin, Chuck Norris, Craig T. Nelson, Dennis Miller, and on and on  So once again, you gotta stop with this liberal media crap.  You think the people buying their kids Ferraris and BMWs to drive themselves to Beverly Hills High or shopping on Rodeo Drive are hell bent liberals?
Well what about a iberal like Alec Baldwin or a socialist like Roseanne Barr?

Well the actors and actresses in Beverly Hills who buy a BMW or a Ferrari are probably liberals more than likely.

Why do conservatives think liberals actually give a crap WHAT Tim Robbins, Susan Saranwrap, or Barbara Streisand think?  Maybe some do, but I don't know them.

I like Bill Maher's opinions on most things, except spiritual matters, but he's a libertarian who leaned Republican until it got too embarrassing.  Ariana Huffington was also a Republican until she saw how badly the party got hijacked by big business.  Actually, both parties answer to the same paymasters, IMO. 

Why do conservatives think liberals actually give a crap WHAT Tim Robbins, Susan Saranwrap, or Barbara Streisand think?  Maybe some do, but I don't know them.

I like Bill Maher's opinions on most things, except spiritual matters, but he's a libertarian who leaned Republican until it got too embarrassing.  Ariana Huffington was also a Republican until she saw how badly the party got hijacked by big business.  Actually, both parties answer to the same paymasters, IMO. 


Tom Selleck, one of my small screen heroes, is a staunch Republican.
Clark Gable, the King of Hollywood, was a BIG TIME Republican. He was very far to the right, even being an enthusiastic Ayn Rand fan.
Walt Disney too--Right wing, staunch Anti-Communist.

Tom Selleck, one of my small screen heroes, is a staunch Republican.
Clark Gable, the King of Hollywood, was a BIG TIME Republican. He was very far to the right, even being an enthusiastic Ayn Rand fan.
Walt Disney too--Right wing, staunch Anti-Communist.


Walt wasn't too big on the Jews either! 

Don't forget Frank O'Connor, Rand's hubby.
:)

Well what about a liberal like Alec Baldwin or a socialist like Roseanne Barr?

Well the actors and actresses in Beverly Hills who buy a BMW or a Ferrari are probably liberals more than likely.




::) 

As pointed out by the previous posts, being in Hollywood doesn't make one a liberal. For every liberal there is a conservative, for every Democrat a Republican, for every Green there is a gas guzzler. 

Well what about a iberal like Alec Baldwin or a socialist like Roseanne Barr?

Well the actors and actresses in Beverly Hills who buy a BMW or a Ferrari are probably liberals more than likely.


oddly, California and Hollywood are not interchangeable.  California is almost the entire west coast of the country, and Hollywood is a small part of LA.  California is pretty red outside of the cities, just like most of the country and has even had a Republican governor.  So if we want to begin the whole "look at California" diversion, well, the Republicans were in charge and they're not doing so hot either.

Last time I checked California hasn't sold all it's municipal buildings and built it's entire economy on the back of real estate growth that has now turned very negative.  That's what the article (you clearly didn't read before commenting on) stated. Arizona's gov't is spending far more time chasing immigrants and trying to stick Christian iconography in every public space they can while they continue to run out of money.

I wonder how long it'll take before it begins to resemble Detroit.

Well what about a iberal like Alec Baldwin or a socialist like Roseanne Barr?

Well the actors and actresses in Beverly Hills who buy a BMW or a Ferrari are probably liberals more than likely.


Is Roseanne Barr a member of the Socialist Party?  Just thought I'd ask, wouldn't want you to resort to throwing the word Socialist around like it's some political catch phrase.

Is Roseanne Barr a member of the Socialist Party?  Just thought I'd ask, wouldn't want you to resort to throwing the word Socialist around like it's some political catch phrase.



Why not?  This is the United States and if Roseanne wants to be a Socialist she has every right, though there are many who do not believe in freedom of thought when it comes to political thought.

Why not?  This is the United States and if Roseanne wants to be a Socialist she has every right, though there are many who do not believe in freedom of thought when it comes to political thought.


I think what I was getting at was the term Socialist is thrown around way too much.  Obama has been called one and so have quite a few moderates.  You are correct in your opinion hat she does have the right.  If she is infact a Socialist then she obviously is aware of freedom of political thought and hasn't drank any "koolaid".

Tom Selleck, one of my small screen heroes, is a staunch Republican.Clark Gable, the King of Hollywood, was a BIG TIME Republican. He was very far to the right, even being an enthusiastic Ayn Rand fan.
Walt Disney too--Right wing, staunch Anti-Communist.
Yeah he supported McCain in '08.

Is Roseanne Barr a member of the Socialist Party?  Just thought I'd ask, wouldn't want you to resort to throwing the word Socialist around like it's some political catch phrase.
No, she said she was a socialist last week on Bill O' Reilly's show.

I think what I was getting at was the term Socialist is thrown around way too much.  Obama has been called one and so have quite a few moderates.  You are correct in your opinion hat she does have the right.  If she is infact a Socialist then she obviously is aware of freedom of political thought and hasn't drank any "koolaid".
I actually don't believe Obama is a socialist. I think he is much a moderate liberal democrat. I mean he does agree with conservative republicans on free trade. He agrees with neo-cons about the wars too.

oddly, California and Hollywood are not interchangeable.   California is almost the entire west coast of the country, and Hollywood is a small part of LA.  California is pretty red outside of the cities, just like most of the country and has even had a Republican governor.  So if we want to begin the whole "look at California" diversion, well, the Republicans were in charge and they're not doing so hot either.

Last time I checked California hasn't sold all it's municipal buildings and built it's entire economy on the back of real estate growth that has now turned very negative.  That's what the article (you clearly didn't read before commenting on) stated. Arizona's gov't is spending far more time chasing immigrants and trying to stick Christian iconography in every public space they can while they continue to run out of money.

I wonder how long it'll take before it begins to resemble Detroit.
True Sacramento, Bakersfield, and San Diego are conservative but Los Angeles (as you pointed out) and San Francisco are liberal.Yes I acknowledge California has had Repub Governors(Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan) but California is a D +12 state in the past 2 presidential elections and most of its US House Members are Democrats.

Yes its not good to be building a state on real estate growth right now, I'll give you that. Lets see though CA has a 25 billion dollar deficit while Arizona's is like 1.6 or 1.7 billion dollars though. Thats a big difference.

Detroit is actually building itself up with a rejuvinated Domestic 2.8.

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/arizona-iced-tea-96258.jpg?1191794297

What is wrong with being a socialist? I happened to like the fact that I am one. Does anyone have a problem with THAT??!!! (Besides my dad who is a "card carrying Libertarian".  ::) )



Cat

Ah I think states like California, Nevada, Illinois, and New York will beat Arizona to the line of wanting a bailout. You say Arizona is moving further to the right Chucky but the truth is CA has been moving so far to the left they are broke! CA, NY, and Illinois are deep bule states. Nevada is the exception: they have a Republican Governor and a Dem Legislature.

I should also add there is only 2 states with a budget surplus(Montana and North Dakota) and Arkansas from what I know is even(i.e. deficit nuetral.)


CA is somewhat liberal in some ways, but NOT in terms of taxation.  A group of very right wing legislators has decimated the state's ability to tax.  One result is that what was one of the best public college systems is now decimated

Is Roseanne Barr a member of the Socialist Party?  Just thought I'd ask, wouldn't want you to resort to throwing the word Socialist around like it's some political catch phrase.


You've not been around for a while, good to see you back

What is wrong with being a socialist? I happened to like the fact that I am one. Does anyone have a problem with THAT??!!! (Besides my dad who is a "card carrying Libertarian".  ::) )



Cat




Not me, but then, I'm further to the left than you.  As to your dad, his politics are self serving.

What is wrong with being a socialist? I happened to like the fact that I am one. Does anyone have a problem with THAT??!!! (Besides my dad who is a "card carrying Libertarian".  ::) )



Cat




Those who got theirs often identify as libertarian.  I ain't got mine and no way in hell would I call myself libertarian.  I see every day what the farce of "free market economics" is doing to people and I call it Economic Terrorism.

Yeah, I'm a socialist...and so are most Wall Street investment bankers.
::)

CA is somewhat liberal in some ways, but NOT in terms of taxation.  A group of very right wing legislators has decimated the state's ability to tax.  One result is that what was one of the best public college systems is now decimated
Very right wing in CA? Never heard that one before. Yeah but CA wanted to raise taxes like 1 or 2 years ago and the voters in CA voted it down on the ballot I think.

Very right wing in CA? Never heard that one before. Yeah but CA wanted to raise taxes like 1 or 2 years ago and the voters in CA voted it down on the ballot I think.



Been to California, had an uncle in California, my father group up in Louisiana and Texas, moved to California, left and said you would never go back to any of those places.  Very right wing. Stay right here in New England.

Ariana Huffington was also a Republican until she saw how badly the party got hijacked by big business.

That is her spin on the matter.  Those who were in California generally remember it quite differently.

She was a rabid campaigner for her husband, Mike Huffington.  And in doing so, she generally alienated people on both sides politically.  One moment she would be bashing Liberals who she thought were destroying the state.  Then she would turn right around and attack those whe were Conservative but not religious (yes, she appeared at that time to be a flaming Fundamentalist).  And many Conservatives like myself thought she was a big clown, and voted for other parties because we did not want to see what kind of nutjob influence she might have over her husband if he got into office.

Then when he lost and it looked like his political career was over, she left.  She tried to court several different political groups before finally making her miraculous change to being a Liberal.

I always found it ironic that somebody who was considered such a political buffoon in the 1990's became a darling of the Liberals.  I still see her as a nutcase, and would if her current views were Left or Right.  I do not think she really believes in anything, but simply says whatever she thinks will get her attention.  And if for some reason she was thrown out of favor of the left in the future, she would brobably become a screaming Conservative once again.

No, she said she was a socialist last week on Bill O' Reilly's show.


What a coincidence so are quite a few European countries.  Why do Americans treat Socialism like it's some kind of dreaded plague? 

What is wrong with being a socialist? I happened to like the fact that I am one. Does anyone have a problem with THAT??!!! (Besides my dad who is a "card carrying Libertarian".  ::) )



Cat




Well aren't you just a freakin ray of Socialist sunshine!!! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/1syellow1.gif 

Well aren't you just a freakin ray of Socialist sunshine!!! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/1syellow1.gif 



I do hope so.  ;) :D ;D ;D


BTW, Welcome back.


Cat

What a coincidence so are quite a few European countries.  Why do Americans treat Socialism like it's some kind of dreaded plague? 
Socialism-the wealthy make money and than its redistrubted to the poor. Its basically redistrubted to some people who want to sit on  their butt all day. I have a friend that lives in Europe: it doesn't sound like its all that. Europe has problems with government debt just like we do in the US too.

BTW, I don't want to wait for the government to approve a heathcare issue for me for 6 months. I could die in 6 months while on the waiting list for a surgery. I'm supposed to have a surgery in 1-2 years and Obama Care is on my mind on what surgery I should have.

Socialism-the wealthy make money and than its redistrubted to the poor. Its basically redistrubted to somepeople who want to sit on their butt all day. I have a friend that lives in Europe: it doesn't sound like its all that. Europe has problems with government debt just like we do in the US too.

BTW, I don't want to wait for the government to approve a heathcare issue for me for 6 months. I could die in 6 months while on the waiting list for a surgery. I'm supposed to have a surgery in 1-2 years and Obama Care is on my mind on what surgery I should have.


Assuming people are poor because they are lazy is so untrue. The truth is the working man works his ass off 40 hours a week (for scraps) in order to line the pockets of the wealthy suits.  ::)

Assuming people are poor because they are lazy is so untrue. The truth is the working man works his ass off 40 hours a week (for scraps) in order to line the pockets of the wealthy suits.  ::)
Brian, some people are lazy though I'm not saying everybody that can't find a job for themselves are lazy though.

Brian, some people are lazy though I'm not saying everybody that can't find a job for themselves are lazy though.


I know some people are lazy, I'm saying I personally don't believe your wealth is related to how lazy you are. I know a lot of conservatives think the poor are poor just because they're a bunch of lazy bums and the rich are rich because they worked the hardest. I don't believe people get wealthy because they work harder, they're simply the lucky few, because the reality for the common man is it doesn't matter how hard we work we'll never be wealthy.

I know some people are lazy, I'm saying I personally don't believe your wealth is related to how lazy you are. I know a lot of conservatives think the poor are poor just because they're a bunch of lazy bums and the rich are rich because they worked the hardest. I don't believe people get wealthy because they work harder, they're simply the lucky few, because the reality for the common man is it doesn't matter how hard we work we'll never be wealthy.


I know conservatives who cheat the disability system, or collect unemployment benefits while working under the table, and bad mouth welfare at the same time.  I don't see any of them, on principle, refusing unemployment benefits, or pensions or any of that.  Basically the are mad at having to pay taxes while cheating the system at the same time.

Movie star liberals...like Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Stephen Baldwin, Chuck Norris, Craig T. Nelson, Dennis Miller, and on and on  So once again, you gotta stop with this liberal media crap.  You think the people buying their kids Ferraris and BMWs to drive themselves to Beverly Hills High or shopping on Rodeo Drive are hell bent liberals?


Ronald Reagan and Dennis Miller, liberals? Hell, forget Miller, just the fact that you labeled Reagan as a liberal is about as much of a paradox as you can get.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the young Ronald Reagan, circa 1940s, who was a Democrat and New Deal-er.

Ronald Reagan and Dennis Miller, liberals? Hell, forget Miller, just the fact that you labeled Reagan as a liberal is about as much of a paradox as you can get.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the young Ronald Reagan, circa 1940s, who was a Democrat and New Deal-er.
No "Dannota & Me" was being sarcastic about Miller and Reagan being liberals due to the fact they are conservatives.

Yes Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat back in the 1950's. I mean Reagan wanted Dwight Eisenhower to run for President as a Democrat from what I heard.

No "Dannota & Me" was being sarcastic about Miller and Reagan being liberals due to the fact they are conservatives.

Yes Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat back in the 1950's. I mean Reagan wanted Dwight Eisenhower to run for President as a Democrat from what I heard.


That statement just goes to show the meaninglessness and pettiness of the party system in the US.

Socialism-the wealthy make money and than its redistrubted to the poor. Its basically redistrubted to some people who want to sit on  their butt all day. I have a friend that lives in Europe: it doesn't sound like its all that. Europe has problems with government debt just like we do in the US too.

BTW, I don't want to wait for the government to approve a heathcare issue for me for 6 months. I could die in 6 months while on the waiting list for a surgery. I'm supposed to have a surgery in 1-2 years and Obama Care is on my mind on what surgery I should have.


Did you ever wonder how the wealthy got that way?  Some, like the computer duds, did make it more or less on their own, but most did it by robbing, cheating, or exploiting others, and I am using the word "exploitation" in a specific sense.  As for rationing health care, what the hell is Jan Brewer doing in Az?  So far at least two people have died because she is rationing health care, ie organ transplants.  Right now, you got the $$$ you get the care, if not your up sh*ts creek...

You can't have democracy without a middle class.  You need a little socialism to create a middle class.  We understood this from FDR until that sum bit Reagan sweet talked us out of it.  If you have oligarchy with a few extremely rich people running everything and everybody else running a month and a half behind disaster, you can't have the kind of 1950s America to which Republicans always want to return. 

Now if you want the kind of oligarchy we've got now, it's very dangerous for the citizens to be armed, unless...
(in the interest of good taste at this time, I'm calling off the punchline).
::)

The people who work the hardest are the ones who are busting their butts for minimum wage or just above, while the government and their rich corporate buddies give you the finger. Standing on your feet for 8 hours a day making the rich richer for 8 bucks an hour blows, but many Americans have no other choice. If you can't see the problem with this system I don't know what to say.

The people who work the hardest are the ones who are busting their butts for minimum wage or just above, while the government and their rich corporate thugs give you the finger. Standing on your feet for 8 hours a day making the rich richer for 8 bucks an hour blows, but many Americans have no other choice. If you can't see the problem with this system I don't know what to say.


I can see the problem, and the solution is, s Joe Hill said as he was about to be shot, "don't waste time mourning (or bitching) ORGANIZE."  If you don't like the AFL-CIO, go independent.  Like my old pappy use to say, when you go to work, if there's a union, join it, if there ain't none, organize one.

I can see the problem, and the solution is, s Joe Hill said as he was about to be shot, "don't waste time mourning (or bitching) ORGANIZE."  If you don't like the AFL-CIO, go independent.  Like my old pappy use to say, when you go to work, if there's a union, join it, if there ain't none, organize one.


Where workers fight and organize Joe Hill is at their side...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

Where workers fight and organize Joe Hill is at their side...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif


From San Diego
up to Maine
in every mine and mill
where workers fight and organize
it's there you'll find Joe Hill,
IT'S THERE YOU"LL FIND JOE HILL

And Big Bill, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Joe Little, and all the others, most unsung.

So where is that spirit now?  Lost in nintendo and mortgage payments I guess.

From San Diego
up to Maine
in every mine and mill
where workers fight and organize
it's there you'll find Joe Hill,
IT'S THERE YOU"LL FIND JOE HILL

And Big Bill, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Joe Little, and all the others, most unsung.

So where is that spirit now?  Lost in nintendo and mortgage payments I guess.




Watching Glenn Beck on the Two Minutes Hate!
::)

Remember, you are not a worker.  You are an investor and a consumer.

The people who work the hardest are the ones who are busting their butts for minimum wage or just above, while the government and their rich corporate buddies give you the finger. Standing on your feet for 8 hours a day making the rich richer for 8 bucks an hour blows, but many Americans have no other choice. If you can't see the problem with this system I don't know what to say.
Standing on your feet for 8 hours: your sounding too dramatic when you say that. Let me put its this way some illegal immigrant will take your job if you don't like it. I like you Brian but I'm just stating my opinion.

Believe me I had to work 3 straight overnight shifts this week. Did I like it? No. Did I do it? Yes

That statement just goes to show the meaninglessness and pettiness of the party system in the US.
Yeah but Eisenhower was quite moderate.

Did you ever wonder how the wealthy got that way?  Some, like the computer duds, did make it more or less on their own, but most did it by robbing, cheating, or exploiting others, and I am using the word "exploitation" in a specific sense.  As for rationing health care, what the hell is Jan Brewer doing in Az?  So far at least two people have died because she is rationing health care, ie organ transplants.  Right now, you got the $$$ you get the care, if not your up sh*ts creek...
Thats true if you don't have the $$$ for heathcare you are screwed. What does Jan Brewer have to do with Health Care? She doesn't have Kathleen Sebelius job at HHS.

Probably some people inherited wealth rather than making it on their own. Some people are just lucky. Some of the people I went to High School with their parents were rich they'll probably inherit their parents wealth when they pass on. I mean you could play a sport like  Michael Jordan or Tom Brady and get rich that way. You can get rich by being an actor in the movies if you are lucky.

Did you ever wonder how the wealthy got that way?  Some, like the computer duds, did make it more or less on their own, but most did it by robbing, cheating, or exploiting others, and I am using the word "exploitation" in a specific sense.


(bold added by me, not by original poster.)

*headscratch*

I've slung code, written everything from docs to ad copy, and supported systems on behalf of myself as a conslutant (sic), three professors in two fields of research, one savings-and-loan, one operating systems vendor, one brokerage firm, two financial software firm, one video game company, and one vendor of development tools.  

Some had shinier toys (brokerage), more fun (tools vendor), better food (tossup between vendor and brokerage), and more varied challenges (the health physics prof) than others, but at no time did I ever feel exploited.  If I went through of more than a month or two of only showing up because they were paying me, I started looking for a company where I could feel like "wow, they actually pay me to do something I'd do for free just because it's interesting!"

With the exception of the brokerage firm, my employer has never been a billionaire.  So as one who's made himself a pretty good living in sillycon valley (sic) - while being employed by those "computer dudes", please elucidate.  Because 20 years and ~redacted~ dollars later, I sure don't feel exploited.  

Now, I know you mean something deeper than that, so (my snark aside), as someone who's poorly-versed in your worldview, please elucidate.  You may be right, we may have to agree to disagree, but you're probably onto something that requires a better rebuttal than my lucky experience as a counterexample.

Thats true if you don't have the $$$ for heathcare you are screwed. What does Jan Brewer have to do with Health Care? She doesn't have Kathleen Sebelius job at HHS.

Probably some people inherited wealth rather than making it on their own. Some people are just lucky. Some of the people I went to High School with their parents were rich they'll probably inherit their parents wealth when they pass on. I mean you could play a sport like  Michael Jordan or Tom Brady and get rich that way. You can get rich by being an actor in the movies if you are lucky.


Jan Brewer denied Medicaid funds to several people needing transplants to survive.  Several died.  So tell me about death panels

(bold added by me, not by original poster.)


Now, I know you mean something deeper than that, so (my snark aside), as someone who's poorly-versed in your worldview, please elucidate.  You may be right, we may have to agree to disagree, but you're probably onto something that requires a better rebuttal than my lucky experience as a counterexample.


My internet connection is screwing up, but I'll try.

I am referring to the labor theory of value, which argues that all value is created by human labor, mental or physical.  If you, me, or anyone were payed the full value of our labor, less rent of another's facilities (fixed costs), there could be no such thing as profit as we understand it since profit  is, in essence, the difference between labor cost and value as determined by the market.  The difference between labor cost and value, less fixed cost ("rent", tools, raw material etc) measures the extent of exploitation of labor.  In an industrial context, dealing with material goods, this is fairly easy to figure out.  It get a bit tricky when applied to your Silicon Valley world and more so  in my academic world, especially in the liberal arts areas like history.  Of what value is my writings on 19th Century Chilean history?  None, in the market, but of what value have the skills that doing that research contribute to my ability as a professor of Latin American history?  But the point is, if your employer is making $$ as a result of your work, you are not getting the full value you have generated (less the R,T,R listed above) in your pay check, thus, you are being exploited.

Standing on your feet for 8 hours: your sounding too dramatic when you say that. Let me put its this way some illegal immigrant will take your job if you don't like it. I like you Brian but I'm just stating my opinion.

Believe me I had to work 3 straight overnight shifts this week. Did I like it? No. Did I do it? Yes


Yeah I know what you mean. I like you too. I'm just saying it sucks how hard many of us have to work just to make it and I think a lot of wealthy people just don't understand, and no I wouldn't like if an illegal immigrant took my job. I don't support illegal immigration, though I think they should have an opportunity to become legal if they're actually serious about becoming Americans.

Standing on your feet for 8 hours: your sounding too dramatic when you say that. Let me put its this way some illegal immigrant will take your job if you don't like it. I like you Brian but I'm just stating my opinion.

Believe me I had to work 3 straight overnight shifts this week. Did I like it? No. Did I do it? Yes



NO, employers will give the job to an immigrant, and will screw both of you at the same time, and laugh at both while they roll around fighting for the crumbs they pay because you are willing to fight each other instead of looking at them.  When will you get that?

NO, employers will give the job to an immigrant, and will screw both of you at the same time, and laugh at both while they roll around fighting for the crumbs they pay because you are willing to fight each other instead of looking at them.  When will you get that?


Exactamundo, and Karma!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

My internet connection is screwing up, but I'll try.

I am referring to the labor theory of value, which argues that all value is created by human labor, mental or physical.  If you, me, or anyone were payed the full value of our labor, less rent of another's facilities (fixed costs), there could be no such thing as profit as we understand it since profit  is, in essence, the difference between labor cost and value as determined by the market.  The difference between labor cost and value, less fixed cost ("rent", tools, raw material etc) measures the extent of exploitation of labor.  In an industrial context, dealing with material goods, this is fairly easy to figure out.  It get a bit tricky when applied to your Silicon Valley world and more so  in my academic world, especially in the liberal arts areas like history.  Of what value is my writings on 19th Century Chilean history?  None, in the market, but of what value have the skills that doing that research contribute to my ability as a professor of Latin American history?  But the point is, if your employer is making $$ as a result of your work, you are not getting the full value you have generated (less the R,T,R listed above) in your pay check, thus, you are being exploited.


I'll grant that your conclusion follows from your premises - and karma for calling out the difference: my premises don't include the labor theory of value.

You said it yourself: the labor theory of value gets tricky when measuring things that are the product of the human mind.  That's OK, because capitalism has similar problems: the notion of "intellectual property" breaks down in a post-scarcity economy.  What's the "value" of a song when it can be copied infinitely?  

As the goofy MAFIAA public service ads ask us in before the movie begins, "Would you download a car?"

Well, hell yes I would.  And someday, all of us probably will.  This is a real issue in the industrial world too:  what's the value of "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot" when a replicator can produce it?  We don't have Star Trek style replicators yet, but we do have 3-D fabricators, which are pretty darn close.  Break the handle off your zipper?  Download the zipper handle, and for the cost of the raw materials (some plastic feedstock), a machine small enough to fit on your desktop (and purchasable in kit form for less than $1000, and once you've got your own, you can use it make its own replacement parts.)

Could be as simple as this dodecahedron (or you could just walk to the hobby store and buy a d12 :) or the 975-piece petaminx, which will take you a few days to fab, and (unless you're prepared to spend years to develop a really clever robot!) 75 hours of someone's time to assemble.  

Which brings us back to the labor theory of value again.  Or does it?  My demand for a neat toy - unavailable on store shelves due to its ridiculous complexity - might prompt me to spend a few (hours? days? weeks?) wages to acquire the tools (or access to the tools) to produce one.  We're into marginal utility: Bill Gates would drop the $100K to outfit a small fab house somewhere on his palatial estate without blinking an eye, whereas I'll probably wait a few years until the $1000 homebrew kits are good enough to produce the neat toy, and then take a week off work to build it.

Back to "would you download a car", if we argue for strong IP laws, we eliminate innovation in every field other than patent law, a cure that's worse than the disease.  If we argue for no IP laws, we have to wait many for a dedicated team to create something as polished as a $100M blockbuster movie (or video game) as an open-source labor of love.  The existence of the BSD and GPL licensing paradigms are a pretty clever balance: both requires copyright to exist, but the GPL requires that if you use code contributed under its terms, that you must then add your code to the world's archive of freely-usable code, whereas the FreeBSD licence says that if you really want anyone to be able to use your code, then you've gotta let them use it even if they don't share their changes with the world.

(If Star Wars were a movie made under a GPL-like license, anybody could make a sequel and show it in a movie theater - they could charge for popcorn, but not to watch the movie.  If Star Wars were a movie made under a FreeBSD license, anybody could make a sequel and show it in a movie theater - but they could also charge to watch the sequel.)

I'll grant that your conclusion follows from your premises - and karma for calling out the difference: my premises don't include the labor theory of value.

You said it yourself: the labor theory of value gets tricky when measuring things that are the product of the human mind.  That's OK, because capitalism has similar problems: the notion of "intellectual property" breaks down in a post-scarcity economy.  What's the "value" of a song when it can be copied infinitely?  

As the goofy MAFIAA public service ads ask us in before the movie begins, "Would you download a car?"

Well, hell yes I would.  And someday, all of us probably will.  This is a real issue in the industrial world too:  what's the value of "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot" when a replicator can produce it?  We don't have Star Trek style replicators yet, but we do have 3-D fabricators, which are pretty darn close.  Break the handle off your zipper?  Download the zipper handle, and for the cost of the raw materials (some plastic feedstock), a machine small enough to fit on your desktop (and purchasable in kit form for less than $1000, and once you've got your own, you can use it make its own replacement parts.)

Could be as simple as this dodecahedron (or you could just walk to the hobby store and buy a d12 :) or the 975-piece petaminx, which will take you a few days to fab, and (unless you're prepared to spend years to develop a really clever robot!) 75 hours of someone's time to assemble.  

Which brings us back to the labor theory of value again.  Or does it?  My demand for a neat toy - unavailable on store shelves due to its ridiculous complexity - might prompt me to spend a few (hours? days? weeks?) wages to acquire the tools (or access to the tools) to produce one.  We're into marginal utility: Bill Gates would drop the $100K to outfit a small fab house somewhere on his palatial estate without blinking an eye, whereas I'll probably wait a few years until the $1000 homebrew kits are good enough to produce the neat toy, and then take a week off work to build it.

Back to "would you download a car", if we argue for strong IP laws, we eliminate innovation in every field other than patent law, a cure that's worse than the disease.  If we argue for no IP laws, we have to wait many for a dedicated team to create something as polished as a $100M blockbuster movie (or video game) as an open-source labor of love.  The existence of the BSD and GPL licensing paradigms are a pretty clever balance: both requires copyright to exist, but the GPL requires that if you use code contributed under its terms, that you must then add your code to the world's archive of freely-usable code, whereas the FreeBSD licence says that if you really want anyone to be able to use your code, then you've gotta let them use it even if they don't share their changes with the world.

(If Star Wars were a movie made under a GPL-like license, anybody could make a sequel and show it in a movie theater - they could charge for popcorn, but not to watch the movie.  If Star Wars were a movie made under a FreeBSD license, anybody could make a sequel and show it in a movie theater - but they could also charge to watch the sequel.)


But none of this refutes the labor theory of value, which proposes that nothing has value until human labor, mental or physical, has been expended on it.  Obviously, ideas don't exist without human mental activity.  So you work for a salary, you write some code on your bosses computer.  (S)he owns it, markets it, and makes $$$$$$$$$$$$$. you get your salary.  Actually, in my line, the rewards are a bit clearer.  My boss pays my salary.  I teach my classes and publish.  If its a book, I get whatever royalties I negotiate and get tenure or promotion.  If its some articles there are no royalties, but I still get tenure or a promotion, and by the time I'm a tenured full prof making a respectable, although not lavish income, I continue publishing out of vanity and a labor of love.  In a way, except for the fact that we are employed by others, we are more analogous to the labor independent craft workers of pre-industrial times then to industrial wage workers, but it seems to me that the labor theory of value is still relevant.  

And by the way, in formulating the labor theory of value Marx was well aware of, and informed by Adam Smith's laws of supply and demand, which he accepted and used as a given as part of his reckoning of value.  The other part was the concept of labor in general, or the average time it took a trained craftsman to perform a labor task.

And one can easily incorporate the labor of management into the equation, and to a lesser extent, investors, so long as their capital is used to supply the other two essential, LAND - writ large, and labor.  And their reward would be a minimal interest on their investment.  Stock speculators need not apply.

By the way, as an academic I clearly know that all our arguments start with a premise which may or may not be valid.  I'm interested in your premises, could you elaborate? 

Whether you build houses or write code, you can choose to invest some of your pay in the stock market.  Your choice to do so does not make you a capitalist and does not marry your interests to the capitalist class.

Whether you build houses or write code, you can choose to invest some of your pay in the stock market.  Your choice to do so does not make you a capitalist and does not marry your interests to the capitalist class.


That, my friend, is a given, but doing so, and using credit, especially for a mortgage, does tend to tie one to the system, at  least that's  what Utah Phillips claimed

Yeah I know what you mean. I like you too. I'm just saying it sucks how hard many of us have to work just to make it and I think a lot of wealthy people just don't understand, and no I wouldn't like if an illegal immigrant took my job. I don't support illegal immigration, though I think they should have an opportunity to become legal if they're actually serious about becoming Americans.
Yeah I agree with you on that I mean we have 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Its not like your gonna deport them all!

NO, employers will give the job to an immigrant, and will screw both of you at the same time, and laugh at both while they roll around fighting for the crumbs they pay because you are willing to fight each other instead of looking at them.  When will you get that?
I do look at them every other year for a raise. I'm not that dumb.

I do look at them every other year for a raise. I'm not that dumb.


karma 8)

I do look at them every other year for a raise. I'm not that dumb.


If you look for a raise every other year, you ARE that dumb.  When I was negotiating contracts raises came EVERY year, in amounts that exceeded expected inflation.  And maybe you should read my exchange (above) with Foo regarding something called exploitation, you might learn something.  PM me if you need further explanation of the plight you are in but don't seem to understand

Whether you build houses or write code, you can choose to invest some of your pay in the stock market.  Your choice to do so does not make you a capitalist and does not marry your interests to the capitalist class.


True; the only real capitalists in the stock market are the ones investing in IPOs directly from the issuing broker.  The rest of us are just trading in a secondary market.


NO, employers will give the job to an immigrant, and will screw both of you at the same time, and laugh at both while they roll around fighting for the crumbs they pay because you are willing to fight each other instead of looking at them.  When will you get that?


I'll follow up to Carlos' point, because the IT industry has a similar issue with outsourcing.  My solution was to do things that required good English skills as well as good technical skills.  My employer's solution was to sell into a market where scripted support, poor/nonexistent documentation, and just plain crappy code, wasn't good enough.  We could hire for cheaper in India, but our customers would suffer for it, and would (rightfully) abandon us for our competitors.

So you work for a salary, you write some code on your bosses computer.  (S)he owns it, markets it, and makes $$$$$$$$$$$$$. you get your salary.  Actually, in my line, the rewards are a bit clearer.  My boss pays my salary.  I teach my classes and publish.  If its a book, I get whatever royalties I negotiate and get tenure or promotion.  If its some articles there are no royalties, but I still get tenure or a promotion, and by the time I'm a tenured full prof making a respectable, although not lavish income, I continue publishing out of vanity and a labor of love.  In a way, except for the fact that we are employed by others, we are more analogous to the labor independent craft workers of pre-industrial times then to industrial wage workers, but it seems to me that the labor theory of value is still relevant.


But how long does it take, and how many steps are there, between the labor and the addition of value?  (I'd be a lot more expensive without armies of suicidal Chinese slaving away at FOXCONN to make computers that cost $1000 instead of $10K), and those Chinese would still be dirt-farming peasants without armies of desperate villagers mining coltan out of some pit in Africa.)

The African villager adds a few pennies of value to the dirt he digs out of the muck to get the tantalum that goes into a capacitor.  The Chinese sweatshop laborer adds a few bucks of value to the capacitors he cranks out to some other Chinese laborer checking the motherboards into which the caps get fitted, and a few months/years later, I get a shiny box on my desk.  I add a few thousand bucks' worth of value to the code I sling on it.

And by the way, in formulating the labor theory of value Marx was well aware of, and informed by Adam Smith's laws of supply and demand, which he accepted and used as a given as part of his reckoning of value.  The other part was the concept of labor in general, or the average time it took a trained craftsman to perform a labor task.

I think that's where I really draw issue with the LToV.  (and in passing, yeah, we capitalists miss Adam Smith's the same way you commies miss Rand's :)  If it takes a trained craftsman 10 hours to make a shoe, and someone builds a robot that can do it in 1 hour, the robot-builder adds more value than the trained craftsman.  The endgame is that either all the work gets done by robots, or by people working at slave-labor wages.  I touched on that with the 3D fabs in my post, and it's far enough off that I probably won't have to worry about it, but post-scarcity economies intrigue me.


And one can easily incorporate the labor of management into the equation, and to a lesser extent, investors, so long as their capital is used to supply the other two essential, LAND - writ large, and labor.  And their reward would be a minimal interest on their investment.  Stock speculators need not apply.


Already covered at the start of the point.  "Minimal" is part of that endgame:

"When it gets down to it — talking trade balances here — once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here — once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel — once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity — y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else: music, movies, microcode (software), high-speed pizza delivery."
  - Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash

...which is again why I'm intrigued by post-scarcity economies.  (As long as I'm riffing on Stephenson here, I consider The Diamond Age the sequel to Snow Crash, and consider the neo-Vickys as one potential outcome of such an economy, and if it turns out that way, that's an argument in favor of the labor theory of value.  LToV may ultimately end up winning in a post-scarcity world, but ours is not yet a post-scarcity world.)


By the way, as an academic I clearly know that all our arguments start with a premise which may or may not be valid.  I'm interested in your premises, could you elaborate? 


My choice of words isn't intentionally ironic, but in the interests of honest debate (and under a 2-beer handicap :), I'll write 'em as I initially phrased 'em:

(Something I consider axiomatic): Imbalances in markets are balanced over time.  (cf. Keynes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent)
(Something I consider axiomatic): When two people voluntarily agree to trade with each other, both parties win.
(more of a general principle/observation than a premise, and far too big to take as axiomatic): On balance, (wo)man operates to maximize self-interest, be it rational or not.
(Corollary 1): Imbalances in markets are exploitable.
(Corollary 2): Differences in what we define as self-interest lead to imbalances in markets.
(Corollary 3): It's in everyone's (individual) best interest to spot such imbalances and attempt to exploit them.

So, to pull my job back into it:  My boss thinks he's underpaying me, I think he's overpaying me.  We can deal.  (My employers' customers think it'd cost them more to do Whatever-It-Is-They-Do without us than with us, and as long as they believe that, we're happy to help them do WIITD.)  (My employer buys boxes from $BIGVENDOR and hires janitorial services from $SMALLVENDOR, because it - and I - have both got better things to do with its/our time than worry about whether it takes 10 seconds or 20 seconds for the code to compile, and because it pays me enough to pick up the piece of popcorn I dropped when snacking after lunch, but not enough to feel inclined to vacuum everybody's cubicle after hours.)

I do look at them every other year for a raise. I'm not that dumb.




If you look for a raise every other year, you ARE that dumb.  When I was negotiating contracts raises came EVERY year, in amounts that exceeded expected inflation.  And maybe you should read my exchange (above) with Foo regarding something called exploitation, you might learn something.  PM me if you need further explanation of the plight you are in but don't seem to understand


YEAH!  Every other year? WTF??!  I have never, ever had a job(and I have been working since 16) that didn't have a yearly review, and raise, at their request or mine.

YEAH!  Every other year? WTF??!  I have never, ever had a job(and I have been working since 16) that didn't have a yearly review, and raise, at their request or mine.



I haven't gotten my COLA for the last two years.  :-\\


Cat

I haven't gotten my COLA for the last two years.  :-\\


Cat


Yeah, I know, that's because, as Paul Krugman has been saying, we are in a deflationary spiral that could result in a lost decade, like Japan's, but it looks like no one is listening

I haven't gotten my COLA for the last two years.  :-\\


Cat


That is different, that isn't negotiable.  With a job, and a boss, and considering you are doing a good job and working for a fair employer, yearly raises are (or should be)a given.

Yeah, I know, that's because, as Paul Krugman has been saying, we are in a deflationary spiral that could result in a lost decade, like Japan's, but it looks like no one is listening


And that would be the nice outcome, if it weren't for the fact that the inflation figures are complete fiction.  I'm all for hedonic adjustments - I have more computing power and bandwidth on my freaking cell phone than I did in my house 10 years ago.  And more than existed on Wall Street 20 years ago.  And more than existed on the planet 30 years ago.

But the CPI is a complete and total fiction.  As the prices of corn skyrocket, driving up the price of chicken and beef, we have the proposal to turn even more of our food into fuel, by raising ethanol limits from 10% to 15%.  Great if you hold a few shares of PEIX or ADM (Disclosure: I don't, silly me, although I'll be drinking my share of ethanol during the State of the Union speech!), but isn't it funny how the cost of everything you need to live goes up, while the CPI stays near zero?

I'll pick one nit with you, though: a deflationary spiral isn't quite the same as a lost decade. A deflationary spiral is what we were up against in 1929 and 2008 - a crash of the entire system.  "The party's over brothers and sisters, it's the end of mankind as we know it, hail and fire, hail and fire, 'cos the tide's a risin' and the sea's a comin' in.  A storm's a brewin'!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAgy1o7LAs

 - Awesome fan-made video for Ministry, Let's Go.  A deflationary spiral woulda been like that.

(Actually, it might have been like this even-more-awesome version, which I'm making you click on instead of embedding because has a few pictures of naughty words in it, and one example of very inappropriate political discourse, which is how this thread got started, wasn't it?  But it's also got Napoleon Dynamite, Mr. Bean, a LOLcat, a cheezburger, my old penguin avatar, fat chicks on treadmills, and what appears to be actual video of me typing out one of these screeds during the guitar solo.  Before it gets political, the first 2/3 of that video perfectly describes the markets of late 2008, when deflation really was a concern.)

A lost decade is what you get when you print money and - in a controlled manner - devalue the currency slowly enough that everyone has time to just muddle through.  Maybe it all ends in tears, maybe it all ends in flames (see the even-more-awesome video), but it beats what they did in '29.  Just enough inflation to stave off a deflationary vortex, but not enough to turn us into Zimbabwe.  It's never been done before, but hey, there's always a first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

So, for the time being - and this may have changed this week with the test of the uptrends in commodity prices - the only way to preserve wealth is to roll with the Clam: as long as the Bearded One continues to print the money, the inflation will create the jobs and improve the housing market.  Meanwhile, on with  

PROTIP: The xtranormal cartoon video was from Fall 2010.  As for how things turned out, check out what stocks did between then and January 2011, the date of this post, and from the first round of quantitative easing back in 2009.  Not bad, especially when the Ben Bernanke tells you what he plans to buy, and when, as a matter of public record, a few weeks before it happens.

Nice work, if you can get it.  You wanna talk about exploitation, that's exploitation.  It sure as hell ain't capitalism.  Sure, I'll trade it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

That is different, that isn't negotiable.  With a job, and a boss, and considering you are doing a good job and working for a fair employer, yearly raises are (or should be)a given.



Very true. It is just with my COLA, I like to THINK I'm getting a pay raise.


Cat

While I agree with some of the points made by the quantitative easing video, the problem I have with a lot of Libertarians and Austrian school economists is that they seem to overlook the accountability of corporations while putting nearly all of the blame on government or on quasi-governmental institutions like the Federal Reserve.

There are many things that went wrong during this recent crash, but a large portion of these things stemmed from the actions of banks rather than government.

Granted, at this point, it seems almost as if the banks are part of the government now.  Banking executives seem to pull all the strings.

Granted, at this point, it seems almost as if the banks are part of the government now.  Banking executives seem to pull all the strings.


*ding ding ding*, we have a winner!

SPOILER ALERT:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
 - George Orwell, Animal Farm

In defense of that government, my (Austrian) solution to the problem would have been to let the chips fall where they may.  Banks implode.  FDIC implodes, and deposits implode, taking depositors with them.  World turns into something between Mad Max and the awesomer-but-NSFW Ministry video, and then we pick ourselves up off the floor and move on.  If we'd gone that route, we'd have solved it the way we solved the Great Depression: sometime before we picked ourselves off the floor and moved on, a populist demagogue would have gained power and started a war sufficiently large to result in most of the world's production capacity bombed into ash.  Whoever has industrial capacity when the dust settles, becomes a new superpower.  But with the technology available today, that scenario would likely have played out less like Post-WW2 America, and more like Fallout: New Vegas.

I'm willing to give credit where credit's due.  The Goldman Sachs runs the Treasury.  The Goldman Sachs got the bailouts.  It's only money, and the Fed will print as much as it has to.  The world would have ended in spring of 2009 if the "stress tests" on the banks hadn't been falsified.  We all knew the results were lies.  We didn't even believe the lies.  What economists didn't grasp was that it didn't matter that the stress tests were lies.  

We're now doing the same thing in Europe with the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain).  And the same rules apply - it doesn't matter that the stress tests are bogus.

Even if the game the central bankers are playing doesn't work, all of us - rich or poor - get a few more good years out of it.  And there's a nonzero probability that the gamble actually works.  (And there's a 0% chance that anybody will be able to collect on any bets that it fails.)  

I'm more Chicago school than Austrian school, but those two schools are close enough for government work, and besides, ideological purity is for fanatics.

The only side of the trade you really want to be on is the winning side.  Right now, the only bet is to hold your nose and throw down with the Goldman Sachs.

For the most part, I agree.  Granted, I think we both know that bailouts are just going to keep happening with every collapse.  Every country that experienced one did.

We'll probably just slowly decline in relative power and wealth to the point that the bailouts will seem like a lesser problem compared to the struggles of daily life.  Brazil seems to be our future.

For the most part, I agree.  Granted, I think we both know that bailouts are just going to keep happening with every collapse.  Every country that experienced one did.


And the bailouts weren't as expensive as they'd been made out to be.  $700B for the financial sector, $50B or so for GM, turned out to be somewhere around $25B for TARP, and $19B for GM (minus any profits that the Department of the Treasury makes on its remaining GM holdings.)

The key takeaway from the bailouts isn't that the government gambled $1T of our money and got lucky enough to get most of it back.  The takeaway is that if they'd lost, the $1T wouldn't have been worth anything anyways.  There are lots of games in which the only move is not to play.  This wasn't one of those games.  

If you owe the bank $1M, you have a problem.
If you owe the bank $1B, the bank has a problem.
If the banks owe the government $1T, the banks have a problem.
If the government owes the Chinese $1T, the Chinese have the problem.

Given the choice between:

a) "Gamble, and if you win, you get back most of your wager",
b) "Gamble, and if you lose, the world ends a few years down the road",
c) "Refuse to play, and the world ends next Tuesday"

...the only winning move is not only to play, but to put down $1T (it doesn't matter whether you bet on red or blackue) and spin the wheel.


We'll probably just slowly decline in relative power and wealth to the point that the bailouts will seem like a lesser problem compared to the struggles of daily life.  Brazil seems to be our future.


...the country or the movie? :)

Good points...  lol...

Well, as for that last question...  both, perhaps?

I was thinking more of the country, but the movie is quite possible in some ways when looking at the Patriot Act...

True Sacramento, Bakersfield, and San Diego are conservative but Los Angeles (as you pointed out) and San Francisco are liberal.Yes I acknowledge California has had Repub Governors(Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan) but California is a D +12 state in the past 2 presidential elections and most of its US House Members are Democrats.

Yes its not good to be building a state on real estate growth right now, I'll give you that. Lets see though CA has a 25 billion dollar deficit while Arizona's is like 1.6 or 1.7 billion dollars though. Thats a big difference.

Detroit is actually building itself up with a rejuvinated Domestic 2.8.


Los Angeles as a whole isn't even as liberal as it would appear (though parts of it are very liberal).  LA county voted for Prop 8 which was very surprising given their reputation.  The Bay Area is, and has historically been the true social liberal stronghold of the state.  The reason Los Angeles is such a Democratic stronghold is because the Democrats have completely won over the Hispanic vote, which is generally conservative on social issues like gay marriage.  Back when the Hispanic vote was up for grabs, California was a red-leaning state.  Bush won it in 1988 and possibly would have won it in 1992 if it was not for Ross Perot.  That all changed in 1994 when the California GOP passed their Immigration Reform act.  Ever since then, California has been blue.  As long as the Democrats keep the Hispanic vote secure, they are guaranteed California.  Many political strategists fear what the very conservative anti-immigrant wing of the GOP might try in Texas, which like California in the '80s, is a red state with a large Hispanic population.  If the GOP were to lose Texas the way they lost California, that would be the end of the Republican Party.