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.
The Bay area also has a very high homeless population and crime rate like most liberal-progressive cities.
Easily one one the largest income discrepancies in the world as well.
More proof that liberal-progressive policies divide the citizens, not unite them. Thanks.
Exactly.. When liberal cities follow capitalism, you get extremely high poverty and crime because they tax the **** out of the people, wanting to provide for every single part of their daily lives or cities become Detroit.
There are very few middle grounds with them.
You can choose high cost of living, with extremely high taxes, that you either become the bottom, or the top.
or
very low cost of living, with poverty out the ass for all.
Exactly.. When liberal cities follow capitalism, you get extremely high poverty and crime because they tax the **** out of the people, wanting to provide for every single part of their daily lives or cities become Detroit.
There are very few middle grounds with them.
You can choose high cost of living, with extremely high taxes, that you either become the bottom, or the top.
or
very low cost of living, with poverty out the ass for all.
Fantastic choice liberal policies result in,
From 6/14 to 6/15, among million+ metros. the Bay area was second highest in hourly average earnings growth with 6.0%. Oklahoma City, in the state with the lowest percentage of Obama voters, was last with -3.3%. Nashville, in another red state, was 2nd worst with -3.2%.
Exactly.. When liberal cities follow capitalism, you get extremely high poverty and crime because they tax the **** out of the people, wanting to provide for every single part of their daily lives or cities become Detroit.
There are very few middle grounds with them.
You can choose high cost of living, with extremely high taxes, that you either become the bottom, or the top.
or
very low cost of living, with poverty out the ass for all.
Fantastic choice liberal policies result in,
Wait, are you saying that the Bay Area has high crime and poverty because of taxes??? Not sure where you live but the Bay Area is very expensive due to demand, lots of high paying jobs and Foreign Nationals parking their money in the US - among other reasons. But, I don't believe taxes are really in the equation.
Yes, there is a huge divide between the haves and the have-nots here. I believe San Francisco has a economic divide on par with Rwanda. (this does not mean it looks like Rwanda or people live like those in that country). It's not good but this is capitalism at its' best I suppose. The comparison to Detroit is beyond ridiculous. You cannot compare the two at all unless Detroit has a median home price of a little over 1 million dollars. We have and affordability issue in this region. I live in "cheap" Oakland where 1 bedrooms rent for an average of $2,000/month (much more if you want a washer/dryer, central heat and new). Again, it is an affordability issue. Not a tax issue. I suppose you could say that Liberal policies have created a desireable area where people flock from around the world. Don't like it, there is always the middle of the country where you have hundreds and hundreds of miles of nothing.
In situations in which there is such a gross distortion of reality and rejection of actual facts, one is pressed as to how to address ignorance of such magnitude. A true acdemic retort would take years of education, some experiences in life, and an IQ over 90. Given that impossibility-
The only retort that is all encompassing, and accurate, is to invoke the line from the movie "My Cousin Vinny"-
"Everything that guy said is bullsh*it".
No wonder Trump is so popular. Liberals, with their incoherent nonsense, made Trump popular.
LOL. How big was the middle class in America in 1913, you might be confusing Europe with America?
Your history seems a bit shaky.... perhaps you should look at how many economic downturns occurred between 1880 and 1913. Read up on the gold vs silver debate of the late 19th century and read up on all bank failures that occurred before the Federal Reserve was established.
Prior to Johnson's Great Society more of the country was in poverty and a larger percentage was in extreme poverty.
That's on employers. What happened when Rick Perry talked tough on immigration as the governor of Texas? Major republican donor Bob Perry and his ilk squashed any meaningful immigration policy.
NAFTA was the darling of free market proponents (conservatives). However, most people just can't grasp that manufacturing has changed.....
Next, when one looks at the population of the top 5 exporting countries one would find some interesting things. US manufacturing was never gutted.... it just takes a lot less people to produce those goods (automation and technology).
It's just sad that there are people who actually believe in these sort of absolute statements.
Oh well.... ignorance is bliss.
Hilarious- speaking of ignorance
1. There were 18 recessions/depressions in the 100 years prior to the Federal Reserve. There has been 18 depressions/recessions since the Federal Reserve. However, the duration of the recessions/depressions have been longer and the time to recovery longer since the Fed. Check out the Fed’s dismal track record
It is no coincidence that a federal income tax was initiated at the same time of the Fed. The Fed was created by private bankers to shunt wealth from the citizens (income tax) to the bankers. Currency is created in the Fed System by generating debt (t-bills). The government is compelled to tax the citizens to pay for the maintenance of this debt. What a great system- if you like slavery.
2. Clinton signed NAFTA and convinced democrats on the fence to support the agreement, assuring its victory. Without Clinton- NAFTA never passes. Even Clinton admits he made a mistake.
3. The Great Society created a permanent, impoverished segment of society. Black single parent families have gone from 10% to 80%. Federal social spending programs and the federal government have skyrocketed.
But income inequality exploded under Reagan-it has just been growing ever since.
Income inequality is great only if you don't count government handouts, and believe "the rich pay no taxes".
When you count the handouts, the poor have never been richer.
And if you believe income inequality has never been been as great as it is now, then you need to study history at the turn of the century, 1900. In those days, men worked 60 hours a week in a steel mill and could barely feed the family.
Obama and the democrats tried to raise tax rates on billionaire CEO's, but the republicans stopped them. How can democrats represent the top 1% when they try to raise their tax rates? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
Plus republicans always say "democrats want to punish the rich."
How in the hell can democrats represent the top 1% when republicans themselves say "democrats want to punish the rich"????
Again with someone who doesn't know how taxes work from capital gains? Man you guys need some serious education
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.
