Seattle restaurants going dark as $15 an hour minimum wage goes into effect

Weird, without false premises, distortions and LIES, what would you right wingers EVER have Pal?

I get it, not knowing the Executive branch in Sacramento needs to sign off on a budget (unless he can be overridden) AND THE FACT THAT EXCEPT FOR A SHORT PERIOD (2 YEARS) THE DEMS NEEDED A SUPER MAJORITY TO EVEN PAS AA BUDGET, the Dems somehow had some type of super power asa the GOP Guvs actually ran the state for 24 of 28 years in the Executive Branch duties!

Talk about lack of credibility however Pal....

- - - Updated - - -

Wow your inane rantings are hitting a fever pitch with this post Pal...

 

Nice critique, pal.

 

You keep ONLY blaming the GOP governors, by the way it that turns out to be complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as well. Most of the damage was done under Gray Davis a Democrat. I never once defended Arnie or anyone else but you refuse to blame the legislator. You willfully only blame one part of the process and ignore the other part of the process simply because you are so partisan that you will never criticise a Democrat. You just can't bring yourself to do it.

I have just destroyed you. http://cacs.org/research/unsustaina...ng-the-golden-state-retirement-benefit-costs/

Who was Governor of California in 1999 and 2000. It was Gray Davis A (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Democrat

You have completely lost any and all credibility on this board. You claim that the governor is reponsible and you didn't even bother to check who was governor when the damage was done.

 

During my entire career before retiring, that included working for others as well as owning businesses, I've never found any regulation that imposed any significant unnecesary cost on an enterprise and they don't typically drive up the price and in many cases reduce the price.

Let's just take one example. High-rise steel workers are required, by regulation, to wear a harness and tether that is furnished by the employer. Yes, this imposes a cost on the employer to provide the harness and tether but the other option is don't require it and every time the worker slips they'll end up being a bloody mess on the ground below. Does this insignificant cost due to regulation increase the price of new high-rise construction? Probably not because it would cost the construction company more to deal with the deaths of the employees than it costs them to provide the harness and tether.

Let's take another example were regulations (that cost money) were not followed. Duke Energy failed to provide proper containment of it's coal ash resulting in a major spill of coal ash into the Dan River in N Carolina. While Duke Energy is going to clean up some of this highly toxic pollution it's estimated that when all is done only about 5% of the coal ash will be removed from the Dan River. If Duke Energy was actually required to clean up the entire coal ash spill, which is what it should be required to do, then costs would be astronomical and would increase the costs to the electrical power consumers by three or four times what they're paying today.

In point of fact most government regulations are based upon private enterprise practices that reduce the costs of the enterprise. Others, such as the Seattle minimum wage law, are designed to reduce the tax burden required to mitigate the effects of poverty by reducing poverty.

It is less expensive for the enterprise to pay the minimum wage than for the taxpayers to fund the welfare assistance necessary without the minimum wage.

 

I like to keep it real Pal...

 

Right, Gray WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE EXTRA MONEY FROM car license fees that Arnie chose to give back. A GOP Guv for 24 of 28 years and it's the 4 years of Gray that are the problem *shaking head*



NOW PLEASE TELL ME HOW MANY GOPers opposed that bill in 1999, since YOU claim it's legislators problem??? Oops

NEXT

 

Why are you still posting? Refute what I just posted earlier. Why are you trying to deflect. Are you now claiming that its the minorities in the legislators fault. If the Republicans didn't vote for it then the Democrats wouldn't have? YOU LOST

The bills were passed under a Democrat governor with a Democrat controlled legislator and a Democrat controlled Senate. You controlled everything. And you blaming the GOP for it is obnoxious and blatantly hypocritical and partisan.

 

And EVERY single GOPer except one voted for it. Oops.

AGAIN

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what woiuld right wingers EVER have?

 

Who was in charge? Why do you only continue to blame the GOP for it. I want to see you say that the Democrat governor, Democrat Senate and Democrat Assembly passed SB 400 in 1999. Go ahead and admit it that you were wrong. In 1998 they actually had a surplus. Ever since that bill and the others passed in 2000 under once again, a Democrat governor, Democrat Senate and Democrat Assembly they have fallen way behind. Why can't you also blame the Democrats? After all the Democrats controlled all three branches. You are so partisan that you are literally incapable of blaming the Democrats even when they controlled everything.

This is why I am superior to you, I can easily say that everyone Democrat and Republican who voted for those bills is guilty. You can't, you continue to spin and mealy mouth your way and worm around and blame the GOP when they weren't even running the government. The Democrats controlled the legislator AND the governorship.

 

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have Pal?

Right, the EXECUTIVE branch (Guv) is powerless UNLESS he happens to be a Dem in only 4 of 28 years total, EVERYTHING else is on the legislators feet, since they had a GOP Guv for the 24 of 28 years, THAT'S what you are attempting to sell? lol

Sorry, Until Cali had ANOTHER surplus under ANOTHER Dem Guv, thanks to, get this, GETTING MORE REVENUES, it's NOT the GOP's fault they blocked even budget bills or had the Guv slot, no it was the Dems fault because they couldn't overrule the Guv or minority GOPers who blocked EVERYTHING (like they do uin the US Senate hen Dems had "control") lol


*shaking head*

 

Yes. because an A rating is fine.
If all the states had BBB while others had worse, than it would be number 1 while still being sh*t.
How others are rated is irrelevant. It's what an "A" stands for what matters.

 

The risk wasn't regulated. That is exactly what the problem was.
They than hid the risk in their products and sold them to other banks. That too was because of a lack of regulations.
While it's not some regulation that banks gamble with depositors money,.. it is the essence of the banking business 101
Besides that, the bank loans out a heck of a lot more money than what is being deposited.
That too is because of a lack of regulations.

That all has been fixed with rules and laws, so the unregulated financial world is not able to crash the world economy that easy today.

/facepalm

 

You lost your surplus under a Democrat governor. You lost. Everyone can see that you lost. Please continue to insist that its the California GOP that is reponsible for the problems in California. You only continue to embarrass yourself.

The 1999 Senate was 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans The Assembly was 50 Democrats and 29 Republicans. You were blaming the GOP when they weren't even close to matching the number of Democrats in office?

 

It is the government that forced banks to give risky loans to minorities. No one forced these people to take the loans, did they? Relaxed regulations has allowed more people to get credit to buy homes and cars. It is the Gold Standard monetary policy that made the wealthy tycoons of the past. It made for a very limited amount of people that could get loans. Fractional Reserve Banking changed that. Now even people with poor credit can turn it around by starting with higher interest loans. Pay those off, and your credit score improves. This was not possible in the past. And there is a certain amount of risk in any investment or business venture. Win some, lose some. Risk/reward relationship. You Democrats seem think you can legislate some pie in the sky formula that will eliminate all risk with the relinquishment of our freedoms to the almighty benevolent government. You live in Disney World between your ears.

 

It is relevant. That is like arguing that $100 dollars in Zaire is the same as $100 dollars here. Its not even close. US states that get an A rating are doing very poorly compared to their counterparts. You keep trying to compare a state in the US with other countries in the world which is just ludicrous. Have you ever taken a statistics class, ever? Comparisons must be made with the same unit of measurement. A state in the US is NOT a country. They are completely different. California is the second WORST state in the union. When 1/3 states have AAA ratings and 47 out of 50 states have AA ratings that means California is doing very poorly. Its it Mexico or Brazil, obviously not because those are third world countries. California is the largest economy in the US by far and yet it ranks at second from the bottom. That is NOT good.

 

Oh you mean the ONLY surpluses Cali has had in the past 20+ years is under Dem Guv's? I'M SHOCKED

 

You lost it under a Democrat. You MOD EDIT - Rule 3 claimed that the debt was under a GOP governor. MOD EDIT - Rule 3 It was under a Democrat governor that you began the downward spiral with the pension plans.

 

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...sis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story.html


3 TIMES SINCE WE CREATED THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS THE US HAD A MAJOR BANKING CRISIS, WHEN THE GOP HAD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN THE 1920'S, RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS AND DUBYA'S SUBPRIME CRISIS. What did these 3 periods have in common? Hint they "believed" markets would self regulate!!!

 

Got it, you go with the distortion/false premise again Pal. I'm shocked.No really I am

MY POSIT:
'
GOP blocks Good Governance, be it in Cali or DC. Cali has been governed by the GOP executive branch for 24 of 28 years that coincides with how the trouble we got into, and the GOP fought to even allow more revenues (like in DC), where Dems FINALLY were able to pass a budget bill WITHOUT a super majority, and low and behold, we had a surplus again, under a Dem Guv. Weird how that works right?

 

You had a surplus in 1998..........not last year. That was NOT surplus. I already sourced and showed that you lied about that as well. There was no surplus. They borrowed $500 million from the police pension and they had a retroactive tax that boosted their revenue for only 1 year. MOD EDIT - Off topic

 

Except the financial world wasn't unregulated when it crashed the economy.

The ultimate cause of these crises is that banking regulations allow banks to gamble with deposits. Grain elevators may not do so. Parking garages may not do so. Dry cleaners may not do so. Only banks have this legal privilege, and that is the ultimate cause of the inherent instability. Take away this privilege and all the other regulations become unnecessary.

 

Indeed. the RELAXED regulation thing. And you're selling this as the stringent / the opposite.

You can certainly apply a formula that will limit the risk. And if it was up to the conservatards, than the banks would go forth with gambling with the world economy completely unchecked. And if they loose... than the governments will pick up the bill again and let the common man pay severely for what the multi billionair party squad have caused.

 

A 100 dollars is still a 100 dollars. And in such a way that system of ratings work. An A rating of California would be the exact same rating and meaning anywhere on the globe. It just shows how well you're able to repay a lone.

 

STILL don't understand what banks are huh? I'm shocked. ...lol

- - - Updated - - -

California ended the fiscal year with $1.9 billion left over in its state general fund, Controller John Chiang (D) said last week, the first time the general fund ended with a positive cash balance since 2007, the year before the recession began. The state Department of Finance has projected a $4.2 billion surplus for Fiscal Year 2014-2015, which began July 1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-years-of-cuts-state-budgets-show-surpluses/

 

Unregulated enough to make it crash.
I told you before...
Uncontrolled gambling that the interest rates would not go up ever again, which they always done in the past.
Uncontrolled selling of mortgage packages to other banks withholding the risk.
And uncontrolled lending with hardly any money of their own to pay for their losses.

That is just a retard of an opinion.
There is no loan possible without gambling if the loan can be repaid.
That is not a regulation. That is the essence of banking.
It's just absurd that you do not get this.
It rivals your ignorance that you're unaware of the too big to fail concept.