California -- America's first failed state?

Well he has to live in Florida, not California. People raved about his "million dollar mansion" in a gated community, at least the one in '09 when he got attacked; well back then that would get you a 1800 sq. ft 3/2 in my neck of the woods.

Florida may be a wonderful place, I've only been to the Panhandle, but the weather is much more to my liking here in Cali and well, its California.

 

And if Mickelson had left in the mid-'90s when he started making big bank, somebody might believe him. That's what a lot of guys do. Hell, half the NFL lives in Florida. There are tons of athletes who grew up in California but now live in Arizona or Nevada, and Mickelson with his AZ ties would be a natural candidate.

His taxes went up about 2-3 percent this year, but most of the difference has been plugged into his returns as long as he has been a pro golfer.

I'll believe he's moving when I see it. He's going to take his kids to new schools because of that extra 2-3 percent he has to pay? Mmmm hmmmm.

 

There are no Perkins in California, duh.

 

But Dunkin' Donuts is on the way back!

 

Have you seen the counter help? Tiger ain't coming back.

 

That's racist!

-- Joe Biden

 

Time to change the thread title once and for all, now that the Democrats, I mean the adults, have taken over Sacramento from top to bottom.

http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2013/09/grown-ups_return_to.php

 

The California legislature has been run by the Democrat Party for all but a two-year period (1995-'96) since 1970. If they really have solved the state's problems (and those massive pension deficits are still there), then they've only fixed problems that they themselves created.

 

Nope. California has a system that requires a two-thirds super-majority for budgets and taxes, as well as for local bond measures. It was tyranny of the minority for the long time. So the people elected enough Democrats to unclog the process, and at least by early returns, things are getting done and the state is looking up.

 

So you wish there was a bigger problem to clean up. Got it.

 

Don't be like that.

Just explaining the factual part of it, that having a majority didn't mean anything all those years. No interest in arguing the opinion portion.

 

You're right. I won't be like that.

But let me ask you this. Budgets were passed during all those years. Which side do you figure got more of what it wanted? The majority or the minority? And were there never any times where the majority had a supermajority?