CaseLabs President: Tariffs Drove Us Out of Business

[King_V]

Had they been operating in say Texas, they wouldn't have this problem. CA taxes make it hard for any small business to thrive there.

Companies are pouring into and around Dallas, TX. Toyota just moved its headquarters from CA to North Texas. State farm is building out a complex that will house 8,000 people not far from that. Pepsico's IT headquarters is a couple miles from that. I think taxes are part and the other part is the very high cost of living in many places in CA which both cost companies.

There is too much Power in the CA State's Unions. They gotten the politicians to give them awesome pay & benefit and retirement packages that is now bankrupting the state. Like the teacher's union, CA teachers are some of the best paid in the nation how are the CA schools? All those flooding into Texas I wonder how that will affect the voter demographic.

Their schools? Better than Texas, apparently:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geographic-disparity-states-best-and-worst-schools/1079181001/

OTOH, I find it strange that the weaker and weaker unions get, the more and more they get blamed for everything.

Hell, here in NJ, Chris Christie practically ran on a "The teachers are Public Enemy #1 and responsible for all our debt" platform... yet NJ trades blows, first and second place, with Massachusetts, for best schools in the nation.

Same basic complaint, though - their pay and benefits are too good. Truth was the benefits were supposed to compensate for the less-than-private-sector level of pay. But, eh, that's too inconvenient.

Texas, you might've noticed from last year's hurricane, has an infrastructure problem, among other things. Low taxes, cheap to develop anywhere, and little to no planning - just relentless sprawl.

 

[logainofhades]

In IL the public unions are much of the problem, regarding to debt. The pension plans that these workers have, has become unsustainable. IL credit rating is like one notch above junk status. After decades of kicking the can down the road, the Chicago run congress's solution, more taxes. Public unions have become too powerful, at least here anyway. I cannot comment for other states.

 

[littleleo]

Had they been operating in say Texas, they wouldn't have this problem. CA taxes make it hard for any small business to thrive there.

Companies are pouring into and around Dallas, TX. Toyota just moved its headquarters from CA to North Texas. State farm is building out a complex that will house 8,000 people not far from that. Pepsico's IT headquarters is a couple miles from that. I think taxes are part and the other part is the very high cost of living in many places in CA which both cost companies.

There is too much Power in the CA State's Unions. They gotten the politicians to give them awesome pay & benefit and retirement packages that is now bankrupting the state. Like the teacher's union, CA teachers are some of the best paid in the nation how are the CA schools? All those flooding into Texas I wonder how that will affect the voter demographic.

Their schools? Better than Texas, apparently:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geographic-disparity-states-best-and-worst-schools/1079181001/

OTOH, I find it strange that the weaker and weaker unions get, the more and more they get blamed for everything.

Hell, here in NJ, Chris Christie practically ran on a "The teachers are Public Enemy #1 and responsible for all our debt" platform... yet NJ trades blows, first and second place, with Massachusetts, for best schools in the nation.

Same basic complaint, though - their pay and benefits are too good. Truth was the benefits were supposed to compensate for the less-than-private-sector level of pay. But, eh, that's too inconvenient.

Texas, you might've noticed from last year's hurricane, has an infrastructure problem, among other things. Low taxes, cheap to develop anywhere, and little to no planning - just relentless sprawl.

The article gives a lot of weight to the income level in the state, and not everyone working there was educated there. I would be more interest in the Graduation rate vs Amount spent per child to see how the education per state ranks for that. MA is rated higher than NJ in this link even though MA has a 87% graduation rate and NJ has a 90%.

 

[alextheblue]

You know it's bad when left-funded Snopes says a left talking point is bogus.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harley-davidson-steel-tariffs/

See, once you start throwing out left-funded and trying to pin legit sources as being biased(and yet, when it's convenient for you, THEN you trust them) , you're really just pointing out your own biases and aversion to facts.

Not in this particular case, mind you, as on the H-D point, you're correct. However, when you do this sort of thing, you pretty much destroy your own credibility.

"Left-funded" - conservative dog whistle for biased, or "fake news"

ALL news sources are biased. To deny this is to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. To what degree varies by source and author.

Snopes IS left-funded. That's a fact. There are cases of Snopes political bias affecting their articles. Gasp. But that wasn't the reason I used them as a source. Their bias is directly relevant because the left-leaning poster I was replying to is VASTLY more likely to trust left-leaning news outlets and left-funded fact checkers. But in your own left-leaning bias you were blind to this.

 

[alextheblue]

the Ruslicans

You know what's hilarious? None of the Democrats batted an eye through the whole Clinton (and the a lesser extent, Obama) Russian lovefest. Most people don't even remember any of it, if they knew about it in the first place. Then in 2012 during the debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. The pundits and politicians all maligned him for it, he was practically a public laughingstock for worrying about lil' ol' Russia.

Ohhh but after Clinton lost they're a big problem aren't they? If I was Mitt Romney I'd be sending "I told you so" postcards to all the talking heads.

 

[King_V]

the Ruslicans

You know what's hilarious? None of the Democrats batted an eye through the whole Clinton (and the a lesser extent, Obama) Russian lovefest. Most people don't even remember any of it, if they knew about it in the first place. Then in 2012 during the debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. The pundits and politicians all maligned him for it, he was practically a public laughingstock for worrying about lil' ol' Russia.

Ohhh but after Clinton lost they're a big problem aren't they? If I was Mitt Romney I'd be sending "I told you so" postcards to all the talking heads.

The Democrats didn't say we should trust them unquestioningly. You get that, right?

Russian lovefest? You are absolutely overplaying your hand with that description.

You can look at Trump now, and the complete 180 that the GOP has done, and not bat an eye, but you turn around and point at the Democrats and say "THEY are the ones who said it was harmless"?

Or are you forgetting that the Democratic view was likely to be in the context of the Bush administration unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty. That administration's whole "we don't talk to our enemies ever, at all" stance, which became GOP orthodoxy until Trump.

*smh*

 

[King_V]

Snopes IS left-funded. That's a fact. There are cases of Snopes political bias affecting their articles. Gasp. But that wasn't the reason I used them as a source. Their bias is directly relevant because the left-leaning poster I was replying to is VASTLY more likely to trust left-leaning news outlets and left-funded fact checkers. But in your own left-leaning bias you were blind to this.

No, I thought that the whole left-leaning source to convince a left-leaning person was completely irrelevant.

Ergo, why I objected to your "left-funded" comment. Proof? Or wishful thinking for the dog-whistle?

Or are you saying that Snopes will outright lie on their disclosures page?


And you've got an extremely strange definition of BIASED, it seems.

 

[JamesSneed]

Snopes IS left-funded. That's a fact. There are cases of Snopes political bias affecting their articles. Gasp. But that wasn't the reason I used them as a source. Their bias is directly relevant because the left-leaning poster I was replying to is VASTLY more likely to trust left-leaning news outlets and left-funded fact checkers. But in your own left-leaning bias you were blind to this.

No, I thought that the whole left-leaning source to convince a left-leaning person was completely irrelevant.

Ergo, why I objected to your "left-funded" comment. Proof? Or wishful thinking for the dog-whistle?

Or are you saying that Snopes will outright lie on their disclosures page?


And you've got an extremely strange definition of BIASED, it seems.

I'm fairly sure what you will find is that Republicans of today tend to get more information word of mouth. Word of mouth tends to be the best way to spread misinformation so it's a lot more likely that snopes reports on more Republican talking points but then there is more misinformation to correct.

I do find it funny these days how many people identify as democrat or republican. That whole thing is such a scam and so many people are suckers for it today. It's not like people are say fans of the Dallas Cowboys and they then run around telling people they are a Dallas Cowboy but they sure as heck will claim to be in one party or another even know they have not held a single day in office.

 

[King_V]

It's not like people are say fans of the Dallas Cowboys and they then run around telling people they are a Dallas Cowboy but they sure as heck will claim to be in one party or another even know they have not held a single day in office.

LOL, I'm digressing a little here, but I've used the football team analogy when describing certain voting patterns quite a number of times.

Full disclosure: I don't watch sports.

 

[illutian]

To some of those commenting about how the price increase shouldn't be that big of a deal. That $1.5 per pound is not for the case. It's for the purchase order amount for the raw material. Might not seem like much, but have you considered that there may be Minimum Order Quantities? What if those MOQs put the price way above what they could afford to put down?

Couple that with the default of, what sounded like, a major contract for goods. And the company went under. Had EITHER ONE of those punches not landed, the company would be fine.

 

[littleleo]

You know it's bad when left-funded Snopes says a left talking point is bogus.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harley-davidson-steel-tariffs/

See, once you start throwing out left-funded and trying to pin legit sources as being biased(and yet, when it's convenient for you, THEN you trust them) , you're really just pointing out your own biases and aversion to facts.

Not in this particular case, mind you, as on the H-D point, you're correct. However, when you do this sort of thing, you pretty much destroy your own credibility.

"Left-funded" - conservative dog whistle for biased, or "fake news"

ALL news sources are biased. To deny this is to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. To what degree varies by source and author.

Snopes IS left-funded. That's a fact. There are cases of Snopes political bias affecting their articles. Gasp. But that wasn't the reason I used them as a source. Their bias is directly relevant because the left-leaning poster I was replying to is VASTLY more likely to trust left-leaning news outlets and left-funded fact checkers. But in your own left-leaning bias you were blind to this.

Actually I enjoy reading BBC news and listening to the foreign news for English speaking like the Japanese news. You should listen to them some times too their view of America under Trump and the Ruslicans is quite interesting. What non-biased news sources do you recommend to enlighten all of us? The fun I have is the Ruslicans have to be able to label people if you don't fit cleanly into one of their stereo types then.... you are just liberal leaning, lol. I'm sorry but that is just weak.

 

[littleleo]

the Ruslicans

You know what's hilarious? None of the Democrats batted an eye through the whole Clinton (and the a lesser extent, Obama) Russian lovefest. Most people don't even remember any of it, if they knew about it in the first place. Then in 2012 during the debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. The pundits and politicians all maligned him for it, he was practically a public laughingstock for worrying about lil' ol' Russia.

Ohhh but after Clinton lost they're a big problem aren't they? If I was Mitt Romney I'd be sending "I told you so" postcards to all the talking heads.

Really we are getting a bit away from the Trump Tariffs aren't we? Normal Trump retort "But Obama did it too". LOL! Can't stand on his own he has to hide behind Obama, lol!

Back when Obama was entering office everyone thought we should try to close the gap between us. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine so that was the end of that. Of course I don't recall seeing any Democrats running around in t-shirts saying I'd rather be a Russian than a Republican. These are same people who are upset when people from other countries wear t shirts with their country of orgin's flag.

It is obvious the Russians wanted Trump in the WH either because they have something on him or because they know he wants to open a hotel there and will kiss their ass, or he is going senile. Of course the Russilcans have investigated the Clintons for years even this email BS they investigated. They spent more money on that then healthcare for babies. And they found what.... nothing. They investigated Trump's WH for what a year and what 4 indited so far. Talk about swamp! LOL!

 

[g-unit1111]

It is obvious the Russians wanted Trump in the WH either because they have something on him or because they know he wants to open a hotel there and will kiss their ass, or he is going senile. Of course the Russilcans have investigated the Clintons for years even this email BS they investigated. They spent more money on that then healthcare for babies. And they found what.... nothing. They investigated Trump's WH for what a year and what 4 indited so far. Talk about swamp! LOL!

Oh I totally agree here, with the revelations coming from Manafort and Cohen yesterday it's looking more and more ugly by the day. I swear every day it's something new and crazy.

 

[alextheblue]

Actually I enjoy reading BBC news and listening to the foreign news for English speaking like the Japanese news. You should listen to them some times too their view of America under Trump and the Ruslicans is quite interesting. What non-biased news sources do you recommend to enlighten all of us? The fun I have is the Ruslicans have to be able to label people if you don't fit cleanly into one of their stereo types then.... you are just liberal leaning, lol. I'm sorry but that is just weak.

You're the one constantly tossing around "ruslicans" everywhere you go, and then you complain about labels in the same breath! While conveniently ignoring the Clintons and Obamas ties to Russia. "I'll have more flexibility in my second term" hot mic Obama. Everyone on the left laughed at Romney two elections back when he said Russia was our greatest geopolitical opponent, Obama himself on stage replied "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years" - oh look Romney was right all along!

I already said all news sources are biased. BBC is massively biased, government funded too. They also have no real opposition news networks in the UK or most of Europe, so they (and their overseas viewers) only see one side of things, unless they go online. There's a number of conservative Youtubers in the UK that cover the BBC and their bias, not that you'll ever watch them.

The best way to approach things is to read/watch both left and right leaning sources and formulate your own views based on the combined information. Since my news feed is largely left leaning news publications, I get plenty of exposure to that, but most people (liberal friends of mine included) don't get exposed to much opposing viewpoints.

 

[g-unit1111]

The best way to approach things is to read/watch both left and right leaning sources and formulate your own views based on the combined information. Since my news feed is largely left leaning news publications, I get plenty of exposure to that, but most people (liberal friends of mine included) don't get exposed to much opposing viewpoints.

If I may quote you from two posts ago:

Snopes IS left-funded. That's a fact. There are cases of Snopes political bias affecting their articles. Gasp. But that wasn't the reason I used them as a source. Their bias is directly relevant because the left-leaning poster I was replying to is VASTLY more likely to trust left-leaning news outlets and left-funded fact checkers. But in your own left-leaning bias you were blind to this.

So why say that you look at both sides when you clearly have a problem with sites that are left-leaning bias? You are contradicting yourself here.

 

[King_V]

Getting past your own self-contradiction which g-unit has already pointed out...

I already said all news sources are biased.

Yes, you did already say that. Repeating it doesn't make this statement any less wrong than it was before.

BBC is massively biased, government funded too. They also have no real opposition news networks in the UK or most of Europe, so they (and their overseas viewers) only see one side of things, unless they go online. There's a number of conservative Youtubers in the UK that cover the BBC and their bias, not that you'll ever watch them.

So, the conservative YouTubers are NOT biased, but the European news networks are? You are VERY clearly showing your own bias, and a martyr complex. Yes, we should trust conservative YouTubers to be fair, but most of Europe's networks can't be trusted?

You're right on one thing. They ARE only seeing one side - unfortunately for you, they're probably seeing the factual side, and not seeing the <removed> side.

The best way to approach things is to read/watch both left and right leaning sources and formulate your own views based on the combined information. Since my news feed is largely left leaning news publications, I get plenty of exposure to that, but most people (liberal friends of mine included) don't get exposed to much opposing viewpoints.

No, it's not. It's best to read/watch those that deal in facts, rather than those who lie for profit. But stick to your martyr complex and conspiracy theories. That'll stand you in good stead if we actually wind up going totalitarian here in the US.

<language removed by moderator>

 

[g-unit1111]

So, the conservative YouTubers are NOT biased, but the European news networks are? You are VERY clearly showing your own bias, and a martyr complex. Yes, we should trust conservative YouTubers to be fair, but most of Europe's networks can't be trusted?

You're right on one thing. They ARE only seeing one side - unfortunately for you, they're probably seeing the factual side, and not seeing the <removed> side.

We mods have a running joke about Youtube being used as a source - "some guy on Youtube said it, therefore it must be true!". Of course it's usually said with the upmost sarcasm. :lol:

 

[littleleo]

Actually I enjoy reading BBC news and listening to the foreign news for English speaking like the Japanese news. You should listen to them some times too their view of America under Trump and the Ruslicans is quite interesting. What non-biased news sources do you recommend to enlighten all of us? The fun I have is the Ruslicans have to be able to label people if you don't fit cleanly into one of their stereo types then.... you are just liberal leaning, lol. I'm sorry but that is just weak.

You're the one constantly tossing around "ruslicans" everywhere you go, and then you complain about labels in the same breath! While conveniently ignoring the Clintons and Obamas ties to Russia. "I'll have more flexibility in my second term" hot mic Obama. Everyone on the left laughed at Romney two elections back when he said Russia was our greatest geopolitical opponent, Obama himself on stage replied "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years" - oh look Romney was right all along!

I already said all news sources are biased. BBC is massively biased, government funded too. They also have no real opposition news networks in the UK or most of Europe, so they (and their overseas viewers) only see one side of things, unless they go online. There's a number of conservative Youtubers in the UK that cover the BBC and their bias, not that you'll ever watch them.

The best way to approach things is to read/watch both left and right leaning sources and formulate your own views based on the combined information. Since my news feed is largely left leaning news publications, I get plenty of exposure to that, but most people (liberal friends of mine included) don't get exposed to much opposing viewpoints.

Again Alex I'm not sure what your saying has to do with the Trump Tariffs but you seen to be wanting to follow this tangent...

But Alex they are Ruslicans, they wear t-shirts at these Republican events saying they wish they were Russian I'm just honoring what they have written on their chest. I don't think it is a problem that Republicans want to be Russians I think we should start a Go Fund me page to help them get back to Russia since they want to be Russian.

The problem I have with the Ult-Right is they lie so much while beating their chest crying the world is out to get them. Take the Congressman in SoCal on trial today he and his wife used campaign money to live it up. Instead of saying I made a mistake I'm sorry I won't do it again and I'll take my punishment like a man. He says my wife did it behind my back I didn't know. Oh please, lol!

So what news source gives you the best view of the real world Alex? Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, or Trumps twitter feed? Everything else in the world is left leaning liberal dribble right? I do agree reading multiple points of view is good but isn't that against everything that Trump and the alt right is for? They only want us to get the news from them and no other sources. Didn't Trump say at these events trust only the news from him and no one else?

So Alex you seem want to have to get the last word, so say it and lets wrap this topic up.

 

[RanKing7]

When all else fails, blame Trump.

 

[littleleo]

Well we blamed Obama for 8 years you want us to be unfair to Trump?

 

[JamesSneed]

Well we blamed Obama for 8 years you want us to be unfair to Trump?

Well and lets not forget about HIllary Clinton. Congressional Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years with the end result being zero convictions. I think there was more than enough S tossed that now it's coming back to the republican party.

 

[littleleo]

Well we blamed Obama for 8 years you want us to be unfair to Trump?

Well and lets not forget about HIllary Clinton. Congressional Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years with the end result being zero convictions. I think there was more than enough S tossed that now it's coming back to the republican party.

What I find amusing is how the Ruslicans always were screaming about the Communist and how evil they were trying to destroy America, now they want to be Russians, LOL!