California assembly votes to use taxpayer dollars to give health insurance to illegal aliens
One of the great tragedies of modern America is that California used to be a rock solid GOP state that was governed fairly effectively. Thanks to various macro forces, it is now rock solid Dem and insanity is taking over. Gavin Newsom is on track to being the worst governor in the state's post-WWII history, even worse than Gray Davis.
WSO is not letting me link since I'm a new user. The story is available online.
California voted for their assembly members and governor. They deserve this. Wanna change? Vote next time.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Illegals will vote to give themselves more free things. What are citizens supposed to do?
Inb4 "illegals don't participate in voting process!!"
California is a huge and populous state and very divided amongst Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Much like the country as a whole is pretty disappointed with each election result (whether Obama or Trump) there are a ton of people that are unhappy and disappointed with the increasingly radical government here. I would imagine NY is not so different.
"Voter registration is up slightly; the share of independents has increased. California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. The share of registered voters who are Democrats (44.4%) is up slightly from 2014 (43.4%), while the share of Republicans (25.1%) has declined since 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014"
Source: https://www.ppic.org/publication/california-voter-and-party-profiles/
Yes, when you give up voting, you are basically supporting the side you dislike.
Ideally, federalism is as clean as this. The problem is, California is destroying its middle class and exporting left-wing middle-class voters into other states. This strategy has already turned Colorado blue and it took only about 10 years. The Northeast has done the same thing to Virginia and New Hampshire, and they're well on their way in North Carolina. The Left are locusts. They're the aliens from Independence Day.
This really pisses me off. Californians flee the state due to high taxes and cost of living but continue voting for Democrats. Mind blowing. Contrast the 2016 election to 2004 (which wasn't that long ago). W Bush that year won NV, CO, NM, VA. Now those are pretty solid blue states (although Trump lost NV by just 2.5%). VA was historically a rock solid GOP state, and now Democrats can't seem to lose there. NC went from being double digit slam dunks for the GOP to a freaking swing state.
Right. And my lib Dem buddy (love him, despite his politics, lol) is telling me how Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte are basically cities that have been taken over by people from the Northeast fleeing, seeking a better quality of life, and wouldn't ya know they are voting the same way as they were in the places they're fleeing. It's crazy. It's genuinely crazy.
Blue states are investing in their education and infrastructure, legalizing marijuana, protecting their national parks, and despite those higher taxes, continue to attract thousands of jobs from blue-chip employers. Red states are starving their local schools, police, and fire, and are seeking the death penalty for abortion. Yes, it's a real mystery why an increasing number of state are going Blue!
don't expect logic to be well received on the right. Just a heads up.
If California is the epitome of a blue state, after New York it has the worst economic inequality in America, among the dirtiest air (if not the dirtiest), and horrible roads, in addition to domestic net outmigration. Other than that, they’re killing it.
Hilariously dehumanizing.
The better question, why is it that finance draws so many republican personality types? above all its an intellectual challenge. Strange.
There is a sense of brutal realism inherent in finance, a field that is ultimately about two fundamental questions that have shaped human society from the beginning: 1) how much is something worth? and 2) how can I gain more resources? As such, finance is embedded within our primitive cave man brain, and conservatism as a political philosophy is far more aligned with human nature, for it recognizes our greed and shortcomings. Modern liberalism, on the other hand, is actually quite anti-science in many regards: it refuses to recognize inherent biological differences between men and women, ignores empirical data on different outcomes between various groups, and believes that government policy can alter human nature. Tech employees are mostly of the latter ideological orientation; they see technology as a semi-divine force that through their logic can be used to re-program society and human nature.
Because finance is one of the areas where meritocracy is so powerful AND rewards are so high. As you work in finance, you also realize that capitalism has been the greatest system for growing the pie and you stay free-market. Most people outside finance don't appreciate its importance they way we do. Admittedly, we have also benefitted enormously from it so there is a natural bias, but regardless of how I feel or how a blue collar worker in Alabama feels, the facts don't change. So yes, finance attracts 'republican personality types,' but for good reason
Excuse me did you just say Finance is a meritocracy?
Intellectual challenge? Hardly. Few non-quant jobs require an IQ above 80.
Finance attracts selfish types....hence the concentration of GOP fanbois
Your cave man brain tried to maximize your own resources to the extent that your tribe members didn't turn on you. I would disagree with you, and argue that mutual development and cooperation are human nature, and throughout history those that pursued outright maximization of their own resources have sat on precarious thrones, and eventually been toppled. In order to read history the way you describe, in my opinion you would have to have not thought for very long about human nature, and I'm surprised a field as intellectually rigorous as finance draws so many people who aren't inclined to think more deeply about human nature.
Human nature is complex. Our nature isn't pure individualism--our families are socialist. To a lesser extent, our close friendships and religious institutions can be socialist. But that works because we care about people who are close to us. OTOH, a faceless bureaucracy that redistributes our labor to faceless projects and people does not engender in the average human a sense of altruism.
How to balance the needs of the state with the individual is the key question of government.
Thats why i dont think you can have an opinion without talking about scale. For example, Israel is a country where many social policies work well. The kibbutz for example is a small socialist, shared farming community and it works because there is genetic connection between members of the society. In the US we are not related to each other and so we don't care about one another enough to back social policies. So I'll say that I think social policies can work in the right scale and context, but at no point in human history would a correct reading say something as simplistic as it's human nature to maximize your own resources.
The GOP has too much baggage to articulate the issue around illegal immigrants however, one shouldn't be surprised by this. A majority of illegals (and those that received amnesty under Reagan via LULAC) pushed for immigration laws that surprise surprise benefited their people.
The issue around illegal immigrants is being driven predominately by Hispanics/Latinos from a few countries. If the roles were switched to say a large population of Pakistanis (assuming Pakistan was on our southern border) do you really think these "advocates" would be bleeding their hearts out?
The answer is No.
That's one heck of a projection there. Trump's enforcement of immigration laws does not say "we are only going to deport illegals if they are of Latino origin." In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are more illegals coming in from Asia than Latin America. The reason why the latter gets so much attention is because Mexico is on our southern border and the caravan crisis.
Unpopular opinion: free healthcare for illegal aliens is cheaper on the long run than not doing it.
Democrat Jerry Brown left the governor's mansion having closed a massive state budget deficit he inherited from his Republican predecessor (Arnold) into a $15 billion surplus, brought millions of jobs to the state, and wrecked California's economy so much it's now the 5th biggest on Earth. The horror!
It used to be the fourth
Congrats on the most intellectually dishonest take on anything on WSO in 2019.
Yet another dumb post from you. California has been the world's 5th biggest economy for quite some time. The inherent advantages of the state (e.g. weather, top universities, Silicon Valley, natural resources) existed long before the state became rock solid Dem and were not due to Dem governance.
California's economy is extremely bi-furcated. You have a mass underclass (I think CA has the highest poverty rate in the country or pretty close to it), and an elite upper class. The middle class is getting crushed, hence the population loss of the state.
If it weren't for the weather, California would be an economic basketcase. How many Californians tolerate the utter imbecility of state and city governance because of the weather? LA, for example, experiences an average annual high temperature of 72 degrees F--it AVERAGES room temperature! That's crazy. It does not rain 9 out of every 10 days. Transfer California's government to the Midwest and the whole thing would collapse in 2 years.
Pure political play. Gavin Newsom is vying for in president in 2024. In 2024 expect the democrats to put up him, Pete Buttgieg, or Ro Khanna while the republicans put up Ben Sasse, Ron DeSantis, or another businessman (Granted Trump making an immature child of himself, will probably ruin this)
The whole point of universal healthcare is that giving it to everyone and guaranteeing a minimum degree of preventative care is actually cheaper in the long run than having hordes of people coming in for expensive emergency treatment
Illegal immigrants get emergency room treatment, as do the uninsured. This is extremely expensive. This is why the ACA was successful in driving down costs (or rather, limiting cost inflation); because the aphorism that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is true.
As for the weather - you can say the same thing about a ton of states. No one would live in Florida but for the weather, which has slowly become a more Republican stronghold due to snowbirds from the Northeast, who as mostly elderly folks are more likely to vote conservative.
Moreover, saying "except for [this one thing] no one would tolerate that place" is ridiculous. Texas wouldn't have nearly the population growth it has had without the presence of fossil fuels. A huge amount of growth in Virginia is because DC is nearby.
Folks in California are mostly cosmopolitan in nature and believe that they have a duty to fellow citizens and residents. There is a reason the state is a democratic stronghold - Reagan wrecked the education system back in the day and it's been a liberal state ever since. That isn't some sort of aberrant brain fart on the part of the populace, it's a set of common values.
Essentially this. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. At any income level, people very much more often would rather live in Cali than Tennessee because they'll be better off.
Of course no place is perfect but I always laugh when I hear someone say they'd prefer fucking Alabama to San Diego....like sure buddy
Yup. The 9 poorest states in the Union are rock-solid GOP. You’re all welcome to move there, but I’m guessing you’ll continue to live and benefit from life in Dem-governed cities, while bitching about it.
Yes. But $100k in AL or TN goes at least 1.5x as far as in California. So the income levels needed to sustain a certain lifestyle are wildly different.
And while I'd much rather live in CA, especially SD, than TN or AL, most people choose to live near family, and many more choose to live places because residents are more likely to share their values. So while surprising to people, there is not an insignificant % of people who would choose TN or AL over California before comp even comes into the picture.
Yeah, I've had this debate on the RE Forum with a couple of folks a bunch of times. Cost of Living is only one facet of choosing where to live, and a minor one at that. It's easy to say that California or NYC have high taxes and so no one should live there... but liberal states also have far and away the highest average wages. So yeah, you're losing an additional 10% of your paycheck, but you may still take that because if you want a higher-paying job, that is where they exist. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if you can save an additional 30% of your salary by living in Birmingham versus NYC, you're still living in Birmingham and not NYC. For some people, that's fine, and good on them... but humans aren't motivated solely by economic concerns (one major reason why conservative economics don't work) and having access to Broadway or fine restaurants may be worth paying more in taxes and CoL.
Agree with this, particularly the last paragraph.
Until the Republicans repeal EMTALA (signed into law as part of COBRA by Saint Ronald in 1986, I'll remind you), the public continues to have access to emergency care regardless of ability to pay. Trying to decrease the prevalence of folks - documented or otherwise - using emergency care as primary care by, well, actually giving them access to real primary care via insurance, seems like a win-win to me given that 1) emergency care is the single most expensive manner in which one can receive healthcare, and 2) taxpayers are ultimately on the hook anyway for safety net hospitals and the associated uncompensated care.
Federalism truly is one of the greatest components of the American system. I grew up in a rural, deep red region of a marginally red state and fled that area before the ink on my high school diploma was dry, because the values and way of life were fundamentally misaligned with how I view the world. Likewise, conservative seniors who dislike the basic notion of taxation and want to live in a racially homogeneous "good ole days" environment will always have places like southwest Florida. "Laboratories of democracy", indeed. Interstates 5, 10, and 80 run in both directions.
The issue, of course, being that people living in blue states pay a ton in taxes specifically so that people in red states don't have to. New Yorkers pay a ton in state and city taxes specifically because so much of their taxes gets siphoned off so that people in Kansas aren't reduced to the living conditions of Mogadishu because they refuse to tax their own citizens/corporations. And on a state level, so that Albany can dump the majority of NYS tax revenue into reinvigorating dying upstate communities.
Actutally what Reagan simply did was the Amnesty act, which helped changing the demographics of the state. His idea was simply ''Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet''. Based on the fact that they tend to be Catholic and thus socially conservative. Karl Rove was also a key strategist supporting this idea.
Which resulted in this:![demo](a href="https://www.ppic.org/content/images/Population_fig-2.png">https://www.ppic.org/content/images/Population_fig-2.png</a)
It worked so poorly for Republicans and so great for Democrats, that it has become the long term strategy of the latter .
How fun. Another person ignorant of history.
We're not discussing Reagan's actions as POTUS. We're discussing his activities as Governor of California. His gutting of the CA educational system was critical in turning California from a Republican stronghold into the biggest Democratic state in the Union. The higher education system in particular was among the best in the nation when Reagan came in; when he left it was in a death spiral. Reagan was elected governor in large part by exploiting fears of a red scare on college campuses, and gave a speech in which he said state-run universities "should not be subsidizing intellectual curiosity".
And you can agree or disagree with that. But Californians have, en masse, been of the opinion that Ronald Reagan wrecked one of the greatest strengths of their state, the higher education system. That isn't an irrational, knee jerk reaction. That isn't "stupid liberals not understanding economics". That is an entire state that used to return results in the mid 50s for Republicans rebelling against destructive policies, and becoming a state that votes 60%+ for Democratcs. And unlike our Dixiecrat friends, this wasn't the result of Nixon's Southern Strategy to bring all the Jim Crow racists into the Republican Party, but a rejection of a specific set of policies once their effect became apparent.
Sit laudantium debitis a nihil sed quisquam autem explicabo. Laborum dolorem magnam asperiores tenetur magnam rerum eos quam. Quis error est dolorem laboriosam. Totam dicta ipsa repudiandae reprehenderit illum eaque. Omnis quasi incidunt quae magnam magni tempora ut.
Animi a ipsa qui at. Et iste quis totam quam doloribus adipisci. Magnam necessitatibus fugit voluptas praesentium et explicabo cupiditate.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Similique sed dolorem consectetur omnis sint. Harum porro non perspiciatis nihil.
Molestias harum assumenda rem asperiores aut. Fugit velit quo magnam totam cumque voluptates doloremque dolore. Ut architecto molestiae tempora ea blanditiis.