U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-06-2009, 02:18 PM
 
23,851 posts, read 19,168,178 times
Reputation: 9378

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
This:

"California accounts for 12 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and the largest share of retail sales of any state. It also sends far more in tax revenue to the federal government than it receives — giving a dollar for every 80 cents it gets back — which means Californians are keeping social programs afloat across the country."

What's Bad for California Is Bad for the Country | NBC Los Angeles

Thank you for the clarification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2009, 02:24 PM
 
3,288 posts, read 3,876,383 times
Reputation: 816
Damn you got it, Prop 13 is the most left leaning idea in all of America.

If you don't see the sarcasm in that post you shouldn't be posting in the thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 02:55 PM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,310,365 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Okay, but what follows isn't even a coherent sentence. Care to explain?


Yep, this one here. What on earth does this mean?

Brilliant! Point?



Who are you addressing? Can't be me. I'm not a liberal.

I'm not sure what your point is, and it's not even true (AIG, BofA, etc. are poor people?), but I disagree anyway. Millionaires send good portions of money out of the country (globalization), whereas poor people spend everything locally.


Please define "return on investment" and "throwing money down the drain."

AFAIK, the govt. is entitled to interest on the bank loans, so ROI is in place. Infrastructure is being improved. Neither of these have anything to do with my point, however. Aggregate demand. Care to address that issue?

"Throwing money down the drain" is one of those rhetorical devices that means nothing, but has everyone nodding their heads, even though they have no clue as to what money is going down what "drain."
Ok, Ill play your little game with you.

Ill also remind you that you are the one that compared the Presidents policies to that of the private sector. Now you want to play stupid in regard to that analogy.

The overwhelming majority of the Presidents policies thus far have been to invest in social programs which assist the poor. Your defense of this spendind is "you have to spend money to make money" taking a stab at the private sector to justify his actions.

I am simply pointing out that you are generalizing in order to make a point. In order for a company to justify spending money, they have to guarantee a return on the investment. Without doing so, like giving bonuses to executives, that money is considered wasted.

Similarly, the President's healthcare reform, cap and trade, bailing out of the automakers, and the hundreds of other social programs passed off as a stimulas do nothing to guarantee a return in investment of our economy.

Now you can either choose to defend your analogy over my rebuttal, or you can continue to play ignorant and stupid in regard to what I am talking about.

As far as aggregate demand. You can't just create demand, regardless of how much money you take from the rich and give to the poor. Reason being... as demand starts to raise as people get money, the cost of the products and services they want to purchase also raises to cover the costs the company lost by the stimulas in the first place.

The aggregate demand is not guaranteed to increase simply because money is pumped into the economy by the feds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 03:17 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,068,689 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
Ok, Ill play your little game with you.
Nope, not a game. I'm interested in specifics. "Throwing money down the drain" is meaningless on its own.

Quote:
Ill also remind you that you are the one that compared the Presidents policies to that of the private sector. Now you want to play stupid in regard to that analogy.
Nope. Wasn't comparing Obama's policies to anything. I was making a general statement.

Quote:
The overwhelming majority of the Presidents policies thus far have been to invest in social programs which assist the poor.
I'm calling you on this. What programs have been implemented? I'm aware of an increase in food stamps from the stimulus, but that's hardly an "overwhelming majority."
Quote:
Your defense of this spendind is "you have to spend money to make money" taking a stab at the private sector to justify his actions.
I took a stab at the rhetoric, "Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow." Tell me, how can "everyone understand" a false statement? If I spend money to fix my roof today, that will beget less spending in the future, because I FIXED THE ROOF TODAY. Comprendes?

It's scare-tactic rhetoric. Nothing more. All the little bots nod their heads without actually thinking about what was said.
Quote:
I am simply pointing out that you are generalizing in order to make a point.
Yep. Apparently, the point was lost somewhere. No biggie.
Quote:
In order for a company to justify spending money, they have to guarantee a return on the investment. Without doing so, like giving bonuses to executives, that money is considered wasted.
Yes.

Quote:
Similarly, the President's healthcare reform, cap and trade, bailing out of the automakers, and the hundreds of other social programs passed off as a stimulas do nothing to guarantee a return in investment of our economy.
What is your definition of a "social program?" What are the hundreds you speak of?

No, nothing is guaranteed, but those actions you named certainly do have a return built in. Healthcare reform is to lower the obscene costs. Cap and trade is for reducing pollution and energy independence. Bailing out the automakers is to save jobs and preserve that part of the manufacturing base. You may disagree with the policy, but saying there will be no return on investment is just plain false.

Quote:
Now you can either choose to defend your analogy over my rebuttal, or you can continue to play ignorant and stupid in regard to what I am talking about.
Okay.

Quote:
As far as aggregate demand. You can't just create demand, regardless of how much money you take from the rich and give to the poor.
False. The rich spend money very differently from everyone else.
Quote:
Reason being... as demand starts to raise as people get money, the cost of the products and services they want to purchase also raises to cover the costs the company lost by the stimulas in the first place.
Yes, increasing demand can lead to inflation, but it has nothing to do with covering costs the company loses by the stimulus. What does that mean? Losing costs? Do you mean revenue? Either way, that's not what drives inflation.

Quote:
The aggregate demand is not guaranteed to increase simply because money is pumped into the economy by the feds.
Of course not. Every single one of us could simply save an extra $13 per week. We could flush it down the toilet. We could burn it in our fireplaces. The odds are, however, that the money will be spent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 03:49 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 6,834,686 times
Reputation: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics: Kevin Hassett - Bloomberg.com



Years of democratic expansion of government and massive taxes on everything, has this state on the brink of ruin.



No, we do not believe a word of his rhetoric. All his assumptions, estimates, calculations, forecasts have proven terrible, undeniably wrong.
Just plain goofy:

California is NOT a liberal ideal.

Remember Prop 13- Jarvis?

California is a prime example of the American ethic of, "Something for nothing."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:00 PM
 
23,851 posts, read 19,168,178 times
Reputation: 9378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Just plain goofy:

California is NOT a liberal ideal.

Remember Prop 13- Jarvis?

California is a prime example of the American ethic of, "Something for nothing."
California: Something for nothing coupled with more leeches than tax revenue producers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:05 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 6,834,686 times
Reputation: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
California: Something for nothing coupled with more leeches than tax revenue producers.
That's the beauty of Mr Jarvis' tax revolt of the late 70's-early 80's:

It takes much of the tax production off the revenue stream.

I remember watching (I had not been to Cali back then) when Prop 13 passed. The first effect was the state going from the top to near bottom (thank God for the South) in terms of educational system.

Something for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:10 PM
 
2,320 posts, read 5,876,413 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
That's the beauty of Mr Jarvis' tax revolt of the late 70's-early 80's:

It takes much of the tax production off the revenue stream.

I remember watching (I had not been to Cali back then) when Prop 13 passed. The first effect was the state going from the top to near bottom (thank God for the South) in terms of educational system.

Something for nothing.
I looked at a house in 1972 for $85,000 in Pasadena. The taxes were $25,000 a year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:16 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 6,834,686 times
Reputation: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by roosevelt View Post
I looked at a house in 1972 for $85,000 in Pasadena. The taxes were $25,000 a year.
Sounds impossible.

What Jarvis did was to ease the burden off the property tax, and place on the less stable income tax.

In short, that, coupled with a conservative based economy (Defense spending, etc), shows Calif to be more a failure of boom-style politics- American style.


Something for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:16 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
54,249 posts, read 38,307,371 times
Reputation: 26729
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Years of democratic expansion of government and massive taxes on everything, has this state on the brink of ruin.

Please do regale us with the facts of just HOW MUCH smaller government was at the end of the Reagan as well as both Bush administrations and Ahnald's little reign.

Or would that require just a little too much truth ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top