Opinion Piece: The Golden State isn't worth it (Los Angeles, San Diego: house, living)

[Clarks]

ir chance you did not take basic economics.

If you equate devaluing the currency as curing a recession/depression...

False conclusion

Using your numbers, President Obama has continued on Bush's theme... only President Obama has done it in 9 months instead of Bush's 8 years

If you state this, you did not understand the problem, stop and think for a moment, Bush increased the size of the Federal Government more than any President in history, why? No reason I can think of.
Obama' spending is focused on one objective, objective taken, but not yet secured.

Funny thing... if I try to cure my own recession/depression by spending beyond my means... it's called reckless and often ends in Bankruptcy...

Back to that basic economics, you need to study up on it a bit. Funny thing, Reagan ran against Carter in part by railing against Keynesian economics, yet once in office, he put into practice, Keynesian economics.

As an Educated person with my degree in Engineering... I can attest that deficit spending only kicks the can down the road and saddles the next generation with debt... at the end of the day nature doesn't tolerate deficits...

If you have another way to get the country out of recession/depression, lets hear it. Please don't mention trickledown, we all know that doesn't work, whereas keynesian economics has a proven track record.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Clarks

Just an innocent question here, what have Republicans ever done for the good of California, or the US of A?

They've done the following:

1. Promoted the idea that being self sufficient is better than dependence on government.

2. Discouraged things like lots of divorces and having kids out of wedlock. Many psychologists (grudgingly) and financial writers are starting to agree that these 2 things are an emotional and financial disaster that make people weak and vulnerable.

3. Have been less bad than Democrats on fiscal matters.

I'll be the first to agree I wish the Christian Fundmentalists would go away, especially when they talk about about America being a "Christian Nation" crap. And I hate their "let's force it down their throat" mentality that I see on so many issues. They think the end justifies the means. But unfortunately, this kind of mentality is prevalent among the Dems as well. It's why America is falling apart.

[Clarks]

They've done the following:

1. Promoted the idea that being self sufficient is better than dependence on government.
They may state that idea, but they don't practice it. Funny thing, the "red" states take more in government services than they pay for.
The blue states pay for more government services than they take. So, in practice it is the "liberals" who are less dependent, in addition, this is not a "thing" it is a concept that you speak of.

2. Discouraged things like lots of divorces and having kids out of wedlock. Many psychologists (grudgingly) and financial writers are starting to agree that these 2 things are an emotional and financial disaster that make people weak and vulnerable.

Again, this is spoken not practiced Divorce rates are higher in "red states" than blue states,

3. Have been less bad than Democrats on fiscal matters.
Not at all, Bush deficit, 7 trillion, Clinton left a balanced budget, Reagan tripled the deficit, heck even Obama has not even equaled Bush's deficit.

Let me reiterate, you have come up with concepts, not things, my original question still holds.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

The Formerly-golden State now has the general structure of a Rust Belt state. High taxes, low service, massive corruption.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by sav858

Yet freeway traffic gets worse and worse every year in Orange County too. But the difference is that LA has some alternatives and will have more in the future. LA is a great example of how you can never build enough freeways to solve congestion, it never has happened and never will. Orange County, along with many other metro areas, are repeating the same mistakes LA did and they're going to end up with the same results and pretty much already have. Focusing on just one mode of transportation is shortsighted and stupid imo.

Exactly. It's all about options and LA's investment in public transit will definitely pay off in the long term. How long until people realize that you can't build your way out of traffic congestion? More and more people will just continue coming here. Where does it stop? 20 lane, double decker freeways? No thanks. Time and again, it has been proven that when you widen freeways, they just fill up again. The idea should be to take cars off the road, not just increase road capacity with no other viable options. No one is saying that everyone must ride the subway and never drive again. What we are saying, is that it's time to invest in a feasible alternative to just driving to everything. Driving to the grocery store, driving to the doctor, driving to park, driving to the gym, driving, driving, driving. What's wrong with having other options?

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

That's BS. The real reason is people were effectively forced into suburban living. The auto and oil companies conspired as early as the 1930s to create suburban sprawl development so that people would be dependent on cars and gasoline. They even ripped out the trolley system in Los Angeles. That's right...they ripped it out. It's well documented.

I'm not saying people didn't like living in suburbs. They did and still do. But the downside of suburban living was not apparent at the time (and still isn't to many people). But people just keep wanting what they are used to and what they grew up with even when it's not working because they don't know any different.

I mean, how many cities in America can you live in that offer an urban lifestyle? Not many, even if you want to. And the ones that do offer the possibility of a "car-lite" or "car free" lifestyle are super expensive. And you're going to tell me that we haven't effectively had suburbia forced down our throats whether we wanted it or not? I don't think so.

Nonsense. If there is any brainwashing involved here, it is that which you have succumbed to.

Yep - that's exactly what I'm going to tell you and it is nothing but pure fringe ideology (BS to use terminology that you seem more comfortable with) to think otherwise.

People don't know any different? You must relish relish the idea of appearing as foolish as you possible can. As though you're one of a select few that has been around the block a time or two.

People know what their options are and most Americans do not chose an urban lifestyle. There is a reason urban areas have been losing population and decaying for decades.

[nevergoingback]

Originally Posted by Clarks

They've done the following:

1. Promoted the idea that being self sufficient is better than dependence on government.
They may state that idea, but they don't practice it. Funny thing, the "red" states take more in government services than they pay for.
The blue states pay for more government services than they take. So, in practice it is the "liberals" who are less dependent, in addition, this is not a "thing" it is a concept that you speak of.

And Washington DC is #1 on the list. Corellation is not Causation. This just means small states are disproportionately well-represented. Their representatives go to Washington and do what comes naturally. Maybe if Ca didn't shut down most of their military bases, they would receive more gubment money. Ca is underrepresented in Washington.


2. Discouraged things like lots of divorces and having kids out of wedlock. Many psychologists (grudgingly) and financial writers are starting to agree that these 2 things are an emotional and financial disaster that make people weak and vulnerable.

Again, this is spoken not practiced Divorce rates are higher in "red states" than blue states,

So are the marriage rates. As far as having Kids out of wedlock, Ca. is right at the US average of 38.5%. Which might be skewed way low due to the 10 million illegals having kids in the state. Not sure though.

3. Have been less bad than Democrats on fiscal matters.
Not at all, Bush deficit, 7 trillion, Clinton left a balanced budget, Reagan tripled the deficit, heck even Obama has not even equaled Bush's deficit.

Please show me the link where GW ran a 7 trillion $ deficit. 2009 is set to be our largest ever @ 1.5 Trillion.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures » The Foundry

Bush was for sure a spender, but to think Obama is going to cut back is just plain laughable and there is NO data that would even suggest that.

Clarks, the C-D master of misinformation.

[Clarks]

So, don't complain, show me where I am wrong,








And do try to avoid newsmax, or worldnetdaily.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by nevergoingback

Clarks, the C-D master of misinformation.

What are you? Blaming a 9 month president for a snowball effect of our economic downfall that has been festering for years before Obama took office.

[Clarks]

Nevergoingback probably thinks Obama invaded Afghanistan and now can't figure out what to do.