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.
This seems to be true. I hear many conservatives now calling George W. Bush a liberal. It's odd, but I guess they have to try to dismiss him somehow since he was such a failure.
Human behavior is so funny... especially when it comes to politics
You're completely ignoring the obvious fact that California IS a liberal state and that its liberalism DID in fact kill the state government and economy. It's not a question of subjective criticism at this point... its a FACT. You can point fingers all you want and try and convince yourself it isn't so, but the fact of the matter is, liberalism did kill this state. I live here, I know. Even the liberals themselves can acknowledge it... they are just too afraid to admit that they are wrong.
... and for the record, George W Bush is a proclaimed moderate republican. I do not think he is a liberal and I dont know where you are getting this misinformation that conservatives think hes a liberal. A lot of hard-nosed republicans blame Bush for not cutting ENOUGH federal programs, however, most would agree that Bush's foreign policy was great... even though we had (and still do have) bad intelligence. Bush's motives were always solid and well intentioned, even though the execution of said motives didn't always work as planned... again due to misinformation and poor intelligence. Bush didn't do the research, that is not his job... his job is to come up with goal and then push the button. The same goes for Obama... unfortunately however, his agendas are lofty and shortsighted, and therefore, a huge risk towards this country's success.
Last edited by ryanst530; 01-11-2010 at 07:24 PM..
Human behavior is so funny... especially when it comes to politics
You're completely ignoring the obvious fact that California IS a liberal state and that its liberalism DID in fact kill the state government and economy. It's not a question of subjective criticism at this point... its a FACT. You can point fingers all you want and try and convince yourself it isn't so, but the fact of the matter is, liberalism did kill this state. I live here, I know. Even the liberals themselves can acknowledge it... they are just too afraid to admit that they are wrong.
... and for the record, George W Bush is a proclaimed moderate republican. I do not think he is a liberal and I dont know where you are getting this misinformation that conservatives think hes a liberal. A lot of hard-nosed republicans blame bush for not cutting ENOUGH federal programs, however, most would agree to the fact that Bush's foreign policy was great... even though we had (and still do have) bad intelligence.
To answer your question, there is no concise way to explain that. You need to do your research (I have) and look at how this state taxes its people, what taxes are being imposed and how that tax money is allocated.
Look at the fact that there is an exodus of businesses from California to lower tax states. Northrup Grumman is one company for example that just recently relocated a chunk of their employees. Here is an article to get you started: Jobs moving out of state / Cost complex regulations cited by firms - SFGate
Businesses are leaving because of the high cost of land, but also the strict regulations and tax codes. When businesses leave, jobs leave and so does tax revenue. The states answer to this has always been either: a) increase taxes for all, or b) impose higher taxes on the wealthy... cutting state government is furiously blocked by the left, even though there is simply not enough money. Their answer is to fight decreasing tax revenue with higher taxes... its lunacy.... being one of the highest taxed states, businesses are giving up and moving to greener pastures.
Its common sense economics 101, and the liberals just don't get it.
Last edited by ryanst530; 01-11-2010 at 07:46 PM..
To answer your question, there is no concise way to explain that. You need to do your research (I have) and look at how this state taxes its people, what taxes are being imposed and how that tax money is allocated.
Look at the fact that there is an exodus of businesses from California to lower tax states. Northrup Grumman is one company for example that just recently relocated a chunk of their employees. Here is an article to get you started: Jobs moving out of state / Cost complex regulations cited by firms - SFGate
Businesses are leaving because of the high cost of land, but also the strict regulations and tax codes. When businesses leave, jobs leave and so does tax revenue. The states answer to this has always been either: a) increase taxes for all, or b) impose higher taxes on the wealthy... cutting state government is furiously blocked by the left, even though there is simply not enough money. Their answer is to fight decreasing tax revenue with higher taxes... its lunacy.... being one of the highest taxed states, businesses are giving up and moving to greener pastures.
Its common sense economics 101, and the liberals just don't get it.
And tell me how exactly have liberals come up with the tax policies for California.
A lot of poor WT are leaving California and it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the rising cost of living due to the competition and increased demand to live there. The good ole boys are leaving because they can't afford to live there any longer but of course they won't admit that and will instead cite their disatisfaction with its liberal government...which has...oh been there for the last 50 years and something they didn't have a problem with back then. Unfortunately, that's just how it is. They are going to be moving to rural Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Texas etc
Tax Cuts Killed California | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/145056/tax_cuts_killed_california - broken link)
I have always tended to think Prop 13 was pretty disastrous.
I read the article and disagree with the premise...
First of all California has top rated schools of Higher Learning and it also has top public schools... remember, CA is a very large State.
Second, Prop 13 doesn't make it impossible to raise taxes... what it does is require a 2/3 vote for most and school bonds only require 55%.
If taxes were impossible to raise... how is it my city and county have tax rates almost 50% higher than the 1% Prop 13 rate? The answer is simple... it's because the proposals did get the required votes.
School funding or the taking of School funding from one community and transferring it to another is a big part of why Prop 13 passed... it is one thing to pay high taxes to support local schools... quite another to pay high taxes and see that money going out of the district... it was the State that assumed the responsibility to fund schools...
Prop 13 also provides a modicum of predictability... just imagine how many more lives would have been caught up in the housing crash if people just living their lives in homes they bought would have been subjected to property Taxes doubling or more in just a couple of the last few years.
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.
