President Barack Obama won California's 55 electoral votes on Tuesday, defeating Republican Mitt Romney.
In the 2008 presidential election, the state voted for the Democratic candidate, and since the 1990s has voted for the overall winner of the presidential race three out of five times.
Romney and Obama visited California frequently to raise funds during the campaign, but the state has typically been a Democratic stronghold in recent presidential elections.
The economy was a key issue for many voters in the state, but voter support for the president remained strong.
"It's incredibly important that Barack Obama gets another chance because no other president has inherited the mess for a lack of a better word that he inherited... if he wasn't blocked like he was in his first four years, now he might actually have a chance to do something," said Scarlett Savage of Santa Monica.
The first article isn't really news, but simple right wing propoganda. Simply looking at the actual companies firing people speaks volumes. A lead recycler? A chemical weapons incinerator? The maker of BlackBerry phones? A journal? Boeing? US Cellular? A space exploration company? A wind turbine maker? Plus there are explainations NOT linked to the election explaining the reasons behind the layoffs such as poor 3rd quarters, less government spending in space and aviation and such. There were just a few companies citing Obamacare. It looks like the author of your article read the first one and then caught a case of Romnesia. As for the market, take a look at the new Eurozone forecast and fiscal cliff. You can blame Obama winning for some of the fiscal cliff piece due to him having to try to work with a lame duck Congress again. Maybe they can waste some more time trying to vote out Obamacare when they no that the Senate will never repeal it.
1. Obama does not have a racist bone in his body. There are important racial divisions, and class divisions, and gender divisions in our society. Pretending they don't exist does not make them go away. Am I a racist too for noting their existence? It seems to me that denying the scope of racism in our society obscures an important truth and allows racism to flourish. We should be vigorously searching out racism; when we identify it, we should call it out and fight it with everything we have. Racism is a powerful force in our society; it and its legacy endure and have shaped so much of our society as it is today. You are blind, perhaps willfully so, to ignore it or pretend it does not exist. 2. There *is* a war on women. I don't see how you miss it. Some people want to deny women control over their bodies and limit abortion. Others deny that rape can cause pregnancy, or that all rapes are "legitimate." Others object to making contraception part of every woman's government-guaranteed health insurance plan, as it must be if women are to have full control over reproduction. I won't dignify your comments "crackpot" candidates with a response. 3. Life *is* unfair -- terribly so -- to poor people in the absence of vigorous government antipoverty programs. Poverty should be one of our most pressing concerns. We should care about poor people a lot more than rich people, who take care of themselves just fine in the market economy.
The fuss isn't over "equalization of opportunity", it's over the left-wing philosophy of "equalization if outcome"
What you villify as "class warfare" I call compassion. Yes, the top earners pay the most in taxes -- because they have the most money. If we raise the incomes of the middle class and the working poor, they will pay more in taxes. Income inequality is a huge drag on economic growth, and it has to be narrowed. Economic growth was strongest in the past century when tax rates on the wealthy were the highest and when inequality was at its lowest. 4. Jane Mayer, an award-winning New Yorker writer, has definitively shown that voter fraud is a myth. Your reliance on a frindge website, rather than a credible source, is unfortunate. See Mayer's article here. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer. 5. On the Libyan attack, it's a shame that you choose to politicize an attack on Americans and repeat vile and poorly sourced talking points. The truth is otherwise, and your citations to fringe sources, rather than mainstream media publications is telling. See http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/04/foxs-wallace-forwards-right-wing-myth-that-obam/191126 I have learned a lot about the twists and turns of the right-wing mind. Thank you for answering my questions.
Please give one example of a City, State or Country that has taxed it's way to prosperity.
The tax and spend policies of this administration is going to kill whatever chance we had of getting back the golden goose. You get what you vote for. Greece here we come. See you in four years and then tell me you are happy with your health care premium increase or rationed care, or adding millions to the welfare rolls once they give the next wave of amnesty, or seeing the next wave of Cities going BK because they can't afford to pay the pensions and benefits. Obama blows a half billion on Solyndra and the dems all go, oh well, the next one will be better. Obama covers up Bengazi and it all slides under the rug. So much for transparency. Welcome to the United Socialists States of America
But to answer your question: yes, economic growth can, and indeed has, co-existed with high marginal rates. Economic growth was at its peak in the 1950s and 1960s -- when top marginal income tax rates were 70-90%. It's only when you wear right-wing ideological blinders that you can conclude that taxing those who can afford to pay the most a little bit more somehow won't work. The Congressional Research Service concluded as much in a recent report -- which the Republicans in Congress had suppressed. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?ref=business&_r=3&
>Property rights are a superstition Property rights are not a superstition. Property rights are a means (the only means) for a society to maintain and increase peace and prosperity. Once Property rights can no longer be upheld, there is no way to create stable peace and prosperity. The modern world would no longer be possible. Property rights are in fact human rights. Such rights are in all our interests as without them, life is quite intolerable. Most of the world and its history attests to this.
Moreover, your claim of overloaded welfare rolls is false. We ended welfare in the 1990s. Using the word "socialism" doesn't make anything you say any more true.