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.
What conservatives believe or do as individuals is all fine and dandy but is mere window dressing at the end of the day. You know well and good the bedrock of modern day conservatism in the USA has been supply side economics. The beneficiaries of that gambit were not the poor or working class. In other words, when given the levers of power, they showered gifts on the rich, ran up the nation's debt and made allegiance with religious bigots (Fallwell, Roberston, etc.).
I prefer to challenge their ideals first because there is much to dispute there because many of them actually do contribute to charity in larger numbers than liberals...although we both know it's mostly for tax purposes. LOL
Hey I'm not disputing what you're saying I agree with you but I wouldn't say they they don't believe in charity or churches to fill the void. It doesn't mean that they're actually heartfelt but that they think erroneously that it will alleviate social ills.
Yes, wherever these practices are present we see inflated housing costs and restricted supply. And yes I see the NIMBYism as fake and phony progressivism, limousine liberalism. But CA, specifically NorCal takes the cake.
Point is, when I critique CA I try to be constructive by saying these practices (the faux progressive NIMBYism) should be curbed to help alleviate burdens and I get attacked as though I just took a whiz on the state flag. All someone has to do in here is just say "Texas" and it's understood as some sort of insult. That's the difference.
I don't think anyone attacked Texas. As noted, Play2Win has a dislike for places like Frisco and noted his/her preference for a neighborhood like the Deep Ellum in Dallas. People have preferences. Nothing wrong with that. Put a gun to my head and I would not want to live in Irvine, California. For other people, it is paradise. And that is ok. No need for hurt feelings.
What happens at the local level is peanuts compared to much broader economic/social forces beyond the control of city councils and/or mayors. Granted, I agree, NIMBYs do restrict housing supply from Newport Beach to Santa Monica to Boulder, Co. etc. Even a sensible reform of CEQA (which I would support) will not lead to Texas style supply growth and affordable house prices. It would only nibble on the edges in our largely built out urban areas.
The economic forces chipping away at the middle class have been building for decades and it is a nationwide issue, not only a "progressive" California issue.
At least the liberal wealthy/homeowner NIMBYs in places like San Fran and Santa Monica are supporting state and national candidates/policies that might run counter to their perceived economic interest (higher taxes on the wealthy, higher min. wage, etc.). We can leave the efficacy of these measures for another thread but that they support them is pretty clear. So phony/contradictory on one issue but not so on other issues...
I don't think anyone attacked Texas. As noted, Play2Win has a dislike for places like Frisco and noted his/her preference for a neighborhood like the Deep Ellum in Dallas. People have preferences. Nothing wrong with that. Put a gun to my head and I would not want to live in Irvine, California. For other people, it is paradise. And that is ok. No need for hurt feelings.
What happens at the local level is peanuts compared to much broader economic/social forces beyond the control of city councils and/or mayors. Granted, I agree, NIMBYs do restrict housing supply from Newport Beach to Santa Monica to Boulder, Co. etc. Even a sensible reform of CEQA (which I would support) will not lead to Texas style supply growth and affordable house prices. It would only nibble on the edges in our largely built out urban areas.
The economic forces chipping away at the middle class have been building for decades and it is a nationwide issue, not only a "progressive" California issue.
At least the liberal wealthy/homeowner NIMBYs in places like San Fran and Santa Monica are supporting state and national candidates/policies that might run counter to their perceived economic interest (higher taxes on the wealthy, higher min. wage, etc.). We can leave the efficacy of these measures for another thread but that they support them is pretty clear. So phony/contradictory on one issue but not so on other issues...
I don't know why it is that when I bring this up that people assume I am saying that opposing the nimbyism will somehow bring prices to levels similar to Texas or AZ. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that opposing some of these practices will alleviate some of the burdens. Even "nibbling" off the edges will help younger residents and newcomers. And yes on top of that residents of CA also deal with the added burden of the national issues affecting middle and lower middle class people. In LA county a huge chunk of residents I think LA curbed had it at well over 50% spend their income on housing. Even when LA sees the biggest disconnect between wages and housing costs in the country. On top of that they have to deal with some NIMBYism and red tape restricting housing? C'mon guys.
And I also cited examples of broader state wide practices too not just local nimbyism.
Doing more research, I found out that it's not just a faux liberal or conservative thing. Palo Alto along with other communities in the Bay Area that are more Republican and conservative – places like Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, Atherton, Hillsborough, Danville, and Woodside also practice nimbyism. If liberalism is the culprit than these non-liberal communities should reveal intense housing development and declining prices. But that isn't the case. So I do take back the just liberal argument.
But what's wrong with starting to nibble the edges to give people a chance? What's wrong with letting the market work even if it might only produce a temporary or even marginal difference? Why instead let third parties interfere?
Start with yourself and start reading up on what conservatives believe. You won't come up with such baseless stereotypes next time. Then you can really satusfy your craving for a pointless internet burn.
Funny. No, really. Aside from the fact that you have taken my comments to the other poster out of their context altogether, you contradict yourself in the following post where you reveal that you agree conservative generosity is at least partly disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
I prefer to challenge their ideals first because there is much to dispute there because many of them actually do contribute to charity in larger numbers than liberals...although we both know it's mostly for tax purposes. LOL
Hey I'm not disputing what you're saying I agree with you but I wouldn't say they they don't believe in charity or churches to fill the void. It doesn't mean that they're actually heartfelt but that they think erroneously that it will alleviate social ills.
If charity is not heartfelt, then it's not a function of their foundational beliefs, is it? Which is the personality I was referring to.
And, by the way, the myth that more conservatives contribute to charity than liberals has been disproved - which you can look up. The reality is conservatives and liberals are about equal in charitableness. And you can look that up too.
The context of the "burn" I delivered to the other poster was that that individual is, by his own description, a young man. And we see that this young man spends all day on the internet posting in the forums. Which means he doesn't have a job. Yet he handles communication at a rapid rate, coherently, with good spelling and grammar. Now then: why isn't he working? That is what a conservative would condemn. That is why a conservative would refuse to lend a hand packing and moving. He is, in our joke with each other, an apparently capable individual asking for a handout instead of pulling himself up by his own bootstraps.
The whole exchange was a joke between us. Based on stereotyped humor. Go take a pill and relax.
Funny. No, really. Aside from the fact that you have taken my comments to the other poster out of their context altogether, you contradict yourself in the following post where you reveal that you agree conservative generosity is at least partly disingenuous.
If charity is not heartfelt, then it's not a function of their foundational beliefs, is it? Which is the personality I was referring to.
And, by the way, the myth that more conservatives contribute to charity than liberals has been disproved - which you can look up. The reality is conservatives and liberals are about equal in charitableness. And you can look that up too.
The context of the "burn" I delivered to the other poster was that that individual is, by his own description, a young man. And we see that this young man spends all day on the internet posting in the forums. Which means he doesn't have a job. Yet he handles communication at a rapid rate, coherently, with good spelling and grammar. Now then: why isn't he working? That is what a conservative would condemn. That is why a conservative would refuse to lend a hand packing and moving. He is an apparently capable individual asking for a handout instead of pulling himself up by his own bootstraps.
The whole exchange was a joke between us. Based on stereotyped humor. Go take a pill and relax.
Tule Mutt, no. Just, no. You're getting to be beyond comprehension. Just because I believe that some of them might be disingenuous because I suspect they donate for tax write offs doesn't mean that charity isn't an important tenet of their philosophy. Andrew Carnegie was the one that basically wrote the book on this and many sincere conservatives probably do follow this.
And I said that the STEREOTYPE that the cons use against liberals is that they are cheap with their charitable giving but liberal with other people's money. The STEREOTYPE. You know like the one you used against JM?
The mental gymnastics you engage in are astounding. I think it's about time we just stop responding to each other, Mr. Logic Cop.
Tule Mutt, no. Just, no. You're getting to be beyond comprehension. Just because I believe that some of them might be disingenuous because I suspect they donate for tax write offs doesn't mean that charity isn't an important tenet of their philosophy. Andrew Carnegie was the one that basically wrote the book on this and many sincere conservatives probably do follow this.
And I said that the STEREOTYPE that the cons use against liberals is that they are cheap with their charitable giving but liberal with other people's money. The STEREOTYPE. You know like the one you used against JM?
The mental gymnastics you engage in are astounding. I think it's about time we just stop responding to each other, Mr. Logic Cop.
Bubba, you're the one who tried to make something serious out of a good ribbing here. You're still trying to do it. Drag it out. Don't drag it out. I couldn't care less. The stereotyping was a joke that you seized to make an attack because I frustrate you apparently. Like I said, take a pill.
Doing more research, I found out that it's not just a faux liberal or conservative thing. Palo Alto along with other communities in the Bay Area that are more Republican and conservative – places like Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, Atherton, Hillsborough, Danville, and Woodside also practice nimbyism. If liberalism is the culprit than these non-liberal communities should reveal intense housing development and declining prices. But that isn't the case. So I do take back the just liberal argument.
That is right, it's not just a liberal thing. That is why I mentioned Newport Beach along with Santa Monica, etc.. It is a human nature thing....
Last edited by Astral_Weeks; 05-12-2016 at 04:02 AM..
"Over the past 20 years, more than 4 million Californians have moved to Texas."
Interesting article from 2013, but still relevant today. Good to keep an open mind about other places to live,work, do business in.
"Texas was America's second fastest growing economy last year, according to the new data from the Commerce Department. The state grew by a stellar 5.2%, behind only North Dakota." http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/10/news...c-growth-2014/
Please don't, JM. I don't want this to turn into a Texas vs CA thread. It'll just get nasty. It's a good state doing good things. CA is still a great state.
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.
You're getting to be beyond comprehension. Just because I believe that some of them might be disingenuous because I suspect they donate for tax write offs doesn't mean that charity isn't an important tenet of their philosophy. Andrew Carnegie was the one that basically wrote the book on this and many sincere conservatives probably do follow this. 
