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.
Okay, but what follows isn't even a coherent sentence. Care to explain?
Quote:
Spending money, even as the federal government doesn't guarantee an economic boost.
Yep, this one here. What on earth does this mean?
Quote:
Yes, in the business world, you have to spend money to make money; but how you spend that money is more important.
Brilliant! Point?
Quote:
As you liberals
Who are you addressing? Can't be me. I'm not a liberal.
Quote:
so often point out, going out giving all of the CEOs huge bonuses does nothing to improve the bottom line. Similarly, giving the poor in this County more green does nothing and that is completely Obama's objective. His policies are based completely around the poor, those people that don't drive the economic development of the nation.
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.
Quote:
You want to compare his actions to the private sector. He needs to be dedicating any money at all in areas which guarantee a return on investment. Thats the only time you should "spend money to make money". Throwing the money down the drain in some sort of poverty life support does nothing.
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."
As far as I concerned the people of California deserve the economic condition of their state. They choose to sit and let the government create liberal spending programs they could not afford.
This shows how little you understand about politics (well, that and every other post you've made). First of all, California supports the US economy. Without the economics of San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles and Sacramento, the US economy would be much worse off. We as Californians have supported countless FEDERAL programs through our massive tax revenue. The economy of California is the 8th largest in the world, more significant than over 175 countries. If Californians weren't forced to send so much money to support farms in Iowa and other rural areas in addition to supporting massive FEDERAL waste...including DEA raids (funded by California tax-dollars) of Calfornia-approved medical facilities...the state would not be in such bad financial shape.
And if you knew ANYTHING at all about Calfornia politics, you'd realize that the state is actually quite conservative outside of the Bay Area and Hollywood...there are over 20 representatives in Congress who are Republicans, and the Governor is a Republican too. Remember, California is the state that BANNED gay marriage, it didn't legalize it. California still has the death penalty. It's not as liberal as you think.
This shows how little you understand about politics (well, that and every other post you've made). First of all, California supports the US economy. Without the economics of San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles and Sacramento, the US economy would be much worse off. We as Californians have supported countless FEDERAL programs through our massive tax revenue. The economy of California is the 8th largest in the world, more significant than over 175 countries. If Californians weren't forced to send so much money to support farms in Iowa and other rural areas in addition to supporting massive FEDERAL waste...including DEA raids (funded by California tax-dollars) of Calfornia-approved medical facilities...the state would not be in such bad financial shape.
And if you knew ANYTHING at all about Calfornia politics, you'd realize that the state is actually quite conservative outside of the Bay Area and Hollywood...there are over 20 representatives in Congress who are Republicans, and the Governor is a Republican too. Remember, California is the state that BANNED gay marriage, it didn't legalize it. California still has the death penalty. It's not as liberal as you think.
As you pointed out, CA has to pay for a lot of stuff it doesn't benefit from. These are the type of taxes the TEA parties are against. No one is saying we don't want to be taxed at all and have no roads/military/public trans/etc.
It also sucks that all the loud ones in CA are from Hollywood, kinda gives the state a bad rap.
Pure hogwash. Don't you extreme right-wingers like to use the business world as an example? Ever heard the phrase "You've got to spend money to make money?"
Absolutely but you need to do it responsibly and get something in return. If you give a couple million to a fool to go spend on a business he'll soon be a penniless fool. You really only have two types of very successful business's. There's those that have put the hours in and worked many years investing money back into their business that are solid as rock. Then there's those that have spent huge sums betting the farm. For second type some get lucky and succeed but more often than not it blows up in their face.
As you pointed out, CA has to pay for a lot of stuff it doesn't benefit from. These are the type of taxes the TEA parties are against. No one is saying we don't want to be taxed at all and have no roads/military/public trans/etc.
It also sucks that all the loud ones in CA are from Hollywood, kinda gives the state a bad rap.
Remember, RONALD REAGAN WAS A HOLLYWOOD ACTOR!
Richard Nixon was Calfornia educated and represented Calfornians before the nation as a whole.
The loudest aren't from Hollywood, they're just the only ones anyone listens to. I've been hearing the same crap for a LONG time, the Hollywood types just jump on a bandwagon long after the issue has been established (look at PETA and its cast of characters) and exploit it for their own career goals. The ones who truly care do so their whole lives and do it outside of the public eye. Even worse than the people who follow Hollywood trends are those who rally against anything that a Celebrity is supporting. Just because a celebrity is supporting a cause doesn't mean it's bad.
The worst offenders of all though are the people who think that all global warming talk started with Al Gore...I have projects I did in school from the 1980s that mention greenhouse gasses and global warming. Al Gore just used his name to bring the issue to the ignorant masses.
Absolutely but you need to do it responsibly and get something in return. If you give a couple million to a fool to go spend on a business he'll soon be a penniless fool. You really only have two types of very successful business's. There's those that have put the hours in and worked many years investing money back into their business that are solid as rock. Then there's those that have spent huge sums betting the farm. For second type some get lucky and succeed but more often than not it blows up in their face.
Yes, I know, coalman. I was responding to the nonsense rhetoric in the OP. Especially, the "everyone understands" and "no one believes" ridiculousness.
As far as responsibility and getting something in return, don't forget the tax cuts in the stimulus. Rather than give everyone a lump sum, which would more likely be saved or go toward paying debt, the money is doled out at $13 per week, almost guaranteeing that it will be spent.
This shows how little you understand about politics (well, that and every other post you've made). First of all, California supports the US economy. Without the economics of San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles and Sacramento, the US economy would be much worse off. We as Californians have supported countless FEDERAL programs through our massive tax revenue. The economy of California is the 8th largest in the world, more significant than over 175 countries. If Californians weren't forced to send so much money to support farms in Iowa and other rural areas in addition to supporting massive FEDERAL waste...including DEA raids (funded by California tax-dollars) of Calfornia-approved medical facilities...the state would not be in such bad financial shape.
And if you knew ANYTHING at all about Calfornia politics, you'd realize that the state is actually quite conservative outside of the Bay Area and Hollywood...there are over 20 representatives in Congress who are Republicans, and the Governor is a Republican too. Remember, California is the state that BANNED gay marriage, it didn't legalize it. California still has the death penalty. It's not as liberal as you think.
You seem to be confusing total dollars and percentages? To my knowledge, Californians don't pay more taxes to the federal government than any other taxpayer in any other state. Obviously, sheer size and population means a larger total number of dollars flowing to the Washington from California, but I fail to see how Californians are paying more towards support "for farms in Iowa" than any other state. If Californains were paying a larger share of federal taxes as a percentage of income, then I could buy your argument. What am I missing?
Even worse than the people who follow Hollywood trends are those who rally against anything that a Celebrity is supporting. Just because a celebrity is supporting a cause doesn't mean it's bad.
True, but when Ben Affleck goes to Honduras to help them build shacks to live in, the construction of which I'm sure the locals have been doing for a long time and don't need extra hands, really just the money, it really looks like an attention ploy. But to the celebs credit, at least the attention comes with light shed on the base issue, whereas when college kids do it for their spring break, that is just self-righteousness.
You seem to be confusing total dollars and percentages? To my knowledge, Californians don't pay more taxes to the federal government than any other taxpayer in any other state. Obviously, sheer size and population means a larger total number of dollars flowing to the Washington from California, but I fail to see how Californians are paying more towards support "for farms in Iowa" than any other state. If Californains were paying a larger share of federal taxes as a percentage of income, then I could buy your argument. What am I missing?
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."
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.
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.
