California Prepares To Raise Its Gas Tax to 50 Cents a Gallon July 1st (living in, price)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Cali - Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

... or maybe you should learn the difference between direct and indirect spending some day.

For instance, are housing vouchers considered "Direct" or "indirect" spending? At which level, state or city? If they are provided for an illegal alien vs a legal citizen, which category does the spending fall into? Do you even know the differences?

We'll see.

[citizensadvocate]

For those posters taunting those who don't live in California anymore. Remember the motto what happens in Vegas stay in Vegas is inaccurate in terms of policy making, in other words what happens in California doesn't stay in California. When progressive minded people get priced out of California they are going to move to where the less progressives moved to prior but they would bring their lobbying with them and make their "new" state of domicile just like the one they left behind.

For the one on the water, i bet many times not withiin Calilfornia anymore. I be curious how much this poster pays to fill up his boat? I guess its t probably a sailboat.

It seems there are a lot of people living in California who would continuously compare California with social Democracies in the European Union and would comment in how California taxation as still too low compared to EU countries and continue to lobby for social programs and higher taxes.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

For those posters taunting those who don't live in California anymore. Remember the motto what happens in Vegas stay in Vegas is inaccurate in terms of policy making, in other words what happens in California doesn't stay in California. When progressive minded people get priced out of California they are going to move to where the less progressives moved to prior but they would bring their lobbying with them and make their "new" state of domicile just like the one they left behind.

For the one on the water, i bet many times not withiin Calilfornia anymore. I be curious how much this poster pays to fill up his boat? I guess its t probably a sailboat.

It seems there are a lot of people living in California who would continuously compare California with social Democracies in the European Union and would comment in how California taxation as still too low compared to EU countries and continue to lobby for social programs and higher taxes.

Guessing you mean me. And I already answered this question of yours previously: yes, a sailboat. Several sailboats actually. Plus kayaks, canoes, rowing skiffs. I think my present inventory is 13 boats. That covered for you, the sailboats do have auxiliary power. One has a little propane outboard. But my main boat has an electric drive I designed and built myself. I keep the batteries charged by shore-power at the dock, and have solar panels too. Plus I do take a small, portable gas generator along if I am going out for a few days trip away from shore power.

Will mention that I drive a diesel van which I use to tow my boats up and down the west coast. I put about 30k miles a year on that puppy. I’d guess 2/3rds of that fuel I purchase in California. Am I kvetching about the fuel prices? Nah. Cost of doing my lifestyle. Which I love.

Covered sufficiently now?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

... or maybe you should learn the difference between direct and indirect spending some day.

For instance, are housing vouchers considered "Direct" or "indirect" spending? At which level, state or city? If they are provided for an illegal alien vs a legal citizen, which category does the spending fall into? Do you even know the differences?

We'll see.

Section 8 vouchers are funded by the feds. The data I gave you is for State and Local General Expenditures, Per Capita. Get it now?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Section 8 vouchers are funded by the feds. The data I gave you is for State and Local General Expenditures, Per Capita. Get it now?

Incomplete, and WRONG. You do not understand the difference between direct and indirect spending in government accounting (I knew you didn't just by the table you posted). That much is obvious. This is especially important in California's case where illegal aliens reap many benefits through indirect funding. So your numbers that you found are nearly $25 billion dollars OFF in accuracy.

California is the number ONE welfare state in the US in total expenditures and per capita expenditures once you reasonably calculate the illegal alien factor (and in most cases it's under calculated).

I would suggest MORE READING, and less posting on this topic in your case.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Incomplete, and WRONG. You do not understand the difference between direct and indirect spending in government accounting (I knew you didn't just by the table you posted). That much is obvious. This is especially important in California's case where illegal aliens reap many benefits through indirect funding. So your numbers that you found are nearly $25 billion dollars OFF in accuracy.
California is the number ONE welfare state in the US in total expenditures and per capita expenditures once you reasonably calculate the illegal alien factor (and in most cases it's under calculated).
I would suggest MORE READING, and less posting on this topic in your case.

I was responding to this comment of yours

"For instance, are housing vouchers considered "Direct" or "indirect" spending"

It's irrelevant since you started this post by saying this:

How can a state that spends the MOST on welfare, still have the HIGHEST poverty rate?

So you start the thread wanting to talk about state spending but you failed there, so now you want to move the goal post and talk about federal spending? uh uh sweetie that dog don't hunt.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So you start the thread wanting to talk about state spending but you failed there, so now you want to move the goal post and talk about federal spending? uh uh sweetie that dog don't hunt.

Nope, never made the distinction (you're trying to right now in a somewhat desperate bid to take away attention from the fact that you were severely wrong, that's okay though, I get it ). I'm talking about the dollar value of the California welfare state, which you incorrectly tried to calculate, and which I kindly reminded you of it's actual dollar size since I actually do know what I'm talking about having dealt with government contracts as part of the SBA and knowing how basic accounting rules work (something you clearly have never had experience dealing with).

My main point was for all the money spent, California has shown very little reduction in poverty. In fact the poverty has remained relatively unchanged but the size of the welfare state's budget has grown, greatly. Everything else was a distraction you tried to create in some weird attempt to deflect away from the fact that you know I'm right, and all the measurements and metrics show I'm right.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

uh uh sweetie that dog don't hunt.

I love Boomer humor.

Now since we've established that you need to do more reading on this topic, I'm going to draw some "dog faced pony soldiers".

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I love Boomer humor.

Now since we've established that you need to do more reading on this topic, I'm going to draw some "dog faced pony soldiers".

And yet, again, you don’t address the correction

“We” haven’t “established that sleepy needs to do more reading”. Your declaration doesn’t make it so.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And yet, again, you don’t address the correction

“We” haven’t “established that sleepy needs to do more reading”. Your declaration doesn’t make it so.

You're a loyal guy Tule, despite losing odds. That's actually an admirable quality.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You're a loyal guy Tule, despite losing odds. That's actually an admirable quality.

And yet another diversion from addressing the issue on your part.