DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 05, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
-
Please show me what region of this country, dominated by Democrat policies, legislators, mayors, even governers, demonstrates a level of employment growth & fiscal stability. I look at places like Chicago...Detroit...Los Angeles...DC...now New York is back in the mix, and what do we see?? What I'm witness to is an ever pervasive worsening in crime, unemployment, and debt. Every place that has Democrats fully in charge, showcases the ongoing failing policies of those they've managed to enact. With the kicker being, that many of those policies are designed to maintain, if not grow, the status quo of government need, and as a result, keep themselves in power, by more of those put in need feeling obligated to vote for those who campaign on providing it
In other words, what used to be far more insidious, is getting more brazen, since the #'s are slowly transitioning to the Dem's side...by design. As I referenced before, the "greatness" in a country, as seen by the uber left, is how much Government can do for anyone and everyone. Which translates into their need to be far more controlling of anyone and everyone......with the best intentions of course
-
Please show me what region of this country, dominated by Democrat policies, legislators, mayors,
even governers, demonstrates a level of employment growth & fiscal stability.
SIRS I've seen some Liberals claim Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D)
as an shining example of liberal policies being successful.
They claim Gov Dayton who raised taxes on the rich and increased gvt spending
has a better record of economic success than his neighbor in Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker.
You can easily do a Google search "Scott Walker vs Mark Dayton" and find
mostly articles claiming the liberal Gov Dayton has beaten Gov Walker in economic success.
I have not really looked into the details to see if this is actually true or
a liberal driven media campaign that compares apples to oranges.
-
Fiscal responsibility means nothing to Republicans. They monger wars and build unnecessary weapons all the time on borrowed money.
Gov. Brownback of Kansas cut taxes so deeply that the state is in horrible shape.
Here in Florida, all Rick Scott cares about is cutting taxes.
Cutting taxes is not fiscal responsibility. Privatizing prisons was a terrible idea. It gives the prison company an incentive to falsely accuse priosoners of anything just to keep them there generating revenue. And of course, it is not the violent prisoners that are put in these hellholes.
-
Cutting taxes is neither a gimmick nor the end game. Cutting taxes is an effort to stimulate job growth, and subsequent increased revenues actually coming IN to the government coffers....that can then be used for other social programs. Historically that's always been the case
-
Please show me what region of this country, dominated by Democrat policies, legislators, mayors,
even governers, demonstrates a level of employment growth & fiscal stability.
SIRS I've seen some Liberals claim Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D)
as an shining example of liberal policies being successful.
They claim Gov Dayton who raised taxes on the rich and increased gvt spending
has a better record of economic success than his neighbor in Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker.
You can easily do a Google search "Scott Walker vs Mark Dayton" and find
mostly articles claiming the liberal Gov Dayton has beaten Gov Walker in economic success.
I have not really looked into the details to see if this is actually true or
a liberal driven media campaign that compares apples to oranges.
Governors are slightly different animals, but I'd recognize their efforts, if its being reinforced by their majority party. I look forward to reading up on this Democrat led "success" in Minnesota. I'd almost wonder if that's the exception to the rule, looking at all the other Democrat run regions that are seriously in debt, unemployed, and beholden to the union power structure
-
Cutting taxes is the way that Rick Scott rewards the companies whose taxes are cut.
-
Your erroneous opinion is duly noted
-
It is entirely true.
-
Minus the required facts to support the claim that Scott lowers taxes merely to reward companies, it remans nothing more than your anti-Scott, anti-GOP, error-riddled opinion
-
Cutting taxes is the way that Rick Scott rewards the companies whose taxes are cut.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-georgia-governor-nathan-deal-film-hollywood-20150522-story.html
Our Governor is busy trying to woo a nice employer out of California right now.
Just hoping Texas doesn't jump in front of us.
Sorry Sirs.
-
Nothing to apologize for. The reason a Governor tries such, is knowing that bringing said companies, from OUT OF STATE, into state, INCREASES job opportunites and government revenue. It's not about rewarding them as much as it is wooing them to make their state, their new home, and reaping the economical rewards, from the move. It also helps to keep businesses within the state, from relocating themselves. There's a reason CA is hemorraging businesses to other states
-
The problem with California is thier not aware they got problem. Quite literally all it has to do is do nothing and money will automatically rain into the state. It's that nice here. But it's love dipping into its fund fir the craziest things thinking it'll make it back.
This state is so nice texans live here fir the weather and rarely move back. But thier is a limit. Texas stealing business is not the true threat due to they only have financial incentives to lure businesses to the state. It's basically California's own brand of costliest that is the main cause . My own town which people willing to pay any price to live here are unwelcome. Oakland the same deal. Not a smart thing to do
-
That is one thing that California will always have Texas beat on: the weather. Texas is too cold in the winter, way too hot in the summer, and scorching in the West and muggy in the East.
The biggest problems that California has are that it takes 51% to pass an initiative to do something with the state's money, but 66% to raise taxes to have the money to spend.
The biggest problem Texas has it that is consistently has been electing Republican fools like Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Dolph Briscoe. But soon there will be a sufficient number of Texan voters whose names end in vowels and the letter Z to get it back on the right track. As Speedy González would say ¡Eeeeepa! ¡ Andale, ándale, correle correle Yiiiiiii haaaaa!
-
Kimba, as ususal is on the right track. The Professor, as ususal, derailed before even getting started. The Legislature is so entrenched with liberal Democrats, that they can't figure out why their policies aren't working. Decades of democrat control, and they wonder why busnesses are relocating out of state, in droves. Couldn't possibly be the insane amount of regulations imposed, the heavy handed tax burden applied to businesses, & the ever growing list of mandates. Now we're looking at illegal immigrants getting tax payer payed healthcare. Naaaaa, couldn't be any of that. Must be Bush and those dastardly Republicans
-
The worst problem California has at present is the drought.
-
Again, exacerbated by the completely perverted regulations, out of Sacramento, that diverted much needed water to protect some Delta Smelt fish, and lets not even get started on the bullet drain boondoggle to no where, BILLIONS of dollars that could be used for the building and operating of desalination plants, up & down the coast
-
The worst problem California has at present is the drought.
As I understand it , the water system in California was designed to supply about half the present population.
The drought might be a much smaller problem with half as much load.
And Texas is busy helping with this.
-
I do not see where Texas can send water to California- certainly not the amount needed. There is a Continental Divide in the way.
-
Given the contet in which Plane was writing, it's pretty clear he wasn't literally referring to water flowing from TX --> CA, but rather the population decrease of CA --> TX ::)
-
Given the contet in which Plane was writing, it's pretty clear he wasn't literally referring to water flowing from TX --> CA, but rather the population decrease of CA --> TX ::)
Clearly I should be less clear.
-
Texas is busy helping itself, perhaps.
The drought is not really the reason for businesses leaving.
And I have seen no proof that there are not an equal number of people moving from Texas to California to improve their living conditions.
What is clear is that Texans like to brag a lot.
-
The drought is not really the reason for businesses leaving.
Who the heck said it was??
-
Now texas only advantage is cost but I don't recall it can supply th talent required for the influx of business.true I has some good school but so does California.but alot of california talent are imported. What does texas has that will draw those same talents. California draw is the open crazy culture. Does texas have that also?
-
(http://s1.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/10-texas-long-horn-crazy-tour-de-france-fans.jpg)
To be honest , this picture was not taken in Texas.
That in the background is the Tour de France
-
When a business moves, most of the workers do not move with it. The slight changes in employment would be even more negligible on the water situation. Most of the water goes to agriculture. No one is going to move their almond groves to Lubbock.
-
When businesses move out of state, most of the workers are simply let go...as in fired. THAT is the reality of "changes in employment". That'd be a (-) for CA, since they're hemorrhaging businesses, and a (+) for Texas, since many a business is relocating to their state. If states can't logistically move, nut continue to lose money in CA, they simply close, and everyone loses their job
-
It is good that you have so much compassion for your fellow Californians. Perhaps you should move to Texas.
-
My question is can texas keep the businesses. Is texas willing to change beyond just money the keep businesses. Remember thiers a reason these moves happened now not in the past. Is the fact ca.ifornia is costly only mean businesses are leaving but texas is not the only state to go to. I got a very good friend who visit family in texas and he would never ever think of living thier.
-
The deal where states are forced to compete with one another for business is bad for the people of this country, who work too hard to be shuffled around like helpless pawns. Some states tax their citizens to provide all manner of freebies, such as access roads, exemption from both property and business taxes and even factories to lure them away. It is hardly fair to tax me and others in Miami so that some cheapskate company can relocate tax-free to Tallifagootchee. It is also not fair to the employees that are thrown out of work in whatever state said cheapskate company is located in.
After the move, the local residents must pay for the new schools, roads, bridges and other facilities that the presence of the factory necessitates, along with the bother of traffic congestion, pollution and contributions to politicians that suck up to the newly relocated company.
It is not that the cheapskate company was losing money, either, they just wanted to make MORE, most if which would go to the various big cheeses of the company. The average worker does not benefit from this sort of swindle.
-
It is good that you have so much compassion for your fellow Californians. Perhaps you should move to Texas.
If we could afford it, we would
-
Ii take issue that new business is a tax drain since the influx of employment should more than compensate any loss. My town actually accused the schools has less money. But in all this time all the businesses has increased activity due to more people able to buy there stuff. I cry budget issues more than tax breaks the problem. Remember these businesses are brought in fir financial reasons.
-
I cry budget issues more than tax breaks the problem. Remember these businesses are brought in fir financial reasons.
BINGO!
-
If you can't afford it, you have no business being a Republican
-
Not that my income has anything to do with party affiliation, considering the likes of Soros & Steyer could afford it, but are not Republicans either, but demonstrating again how wrong you are, I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Independent
-
I also cry budget issues in California's financial problems also. My nephew took culinary classes at city college and a chunk of the course is business management . Nothing to do with food at all. Meaning its super crazy easy to lose track of huge amounts of money at just have it disappear not illegally.
-
So true. And the kicker is, the bigger Government gets, the more that happens (both the legal & illegal)
-
In my town i recall audits being made and never once have i heard of the end results. I did followed up with my connections with the city on a audit on homeless programs. That one simply got shut down with nobody ever to mention it.
Because of that I will always vocally bringup the sheer amount if money going to any program and hiw much actually makesit thier.
All programs not just homeless
-
In my old age i've gotten alot less respectful of things
-
I fail to see the point of registering as an independent. Basically that means that you have no real say in who the candidates are of either party. If there were an "Independent" party that would make sense. But there isn't. and it doesn't.
If you registered as a Democrat, you could vote against Hillary. If you registered as a Republican, there are plenty to choose to vote for or against.
-
I fail to see the point of registering as an independent.
To each, their own. Point is, incomes does not make the party
-
The Republican Party has been the party of wealth and privilege ever since the days of Harrison vs Cleveland. The GOP inherited the role of "business party" from the Whigs and the Know Nothings around the time of James K Polk. It was been the party of money, Protestantism and native born White folks since the times of Rutherford Hayes, whose election ended the occupation of the Siuth by the Freedmen's Bureau.
The Democratic Party is somewhat more complicated, as it has been the party of newcomers, and was the party of most Catholics until the time of Reagan's Southern Strategy. After the Civil War, the Republicans called the democrats the party of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, since Republicans tended to be Protestants and supported the Union more than the Democrats, some of whom were Copperheads.
Since FDR, the Democrats have favored government support for the underprivileged, and after Reagan, this has become more important to the Democrats. Reagan's Southern Strategy was to ignore prosecution of the victims of the Klan and other White Power groups in the South, and that is why much of the South swing from Jim Crow Democrats to "They got too much already" Republicans, now more Grandsons of Jim Crow than Fathers of Jim Crow.
If you care about the environment and wise use of public lands, the Democrats favor this more.
If you love Big Oil, Big Banks, and Big Pharma and the Military Industrial Complex, the Republicans are your party.
Both parties have rich donors, but the Republicans have the ones who refuse to do anything to prevent the rich from get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class.
-
The massive error in your premise being that those Republicans that actually support tax relief to ALL tax payers, are the ones who are actually supporting the poor and middle classes. The ones who resist living wage hikes are trying to save small businesses, who hire so much of the poor.
Putting aside that the KKK was founded by the Democrat party, and still demonstrates overt racist tendencies & rhetoric, it's the policies of the Democrats, fueled by garbage like Obamacare that is gutting the middle class, and making more of the poor class beholden to Government........of course, that's the nefarious goal now, isn't it
-
Both parties have rich donors, but the Republicans have the ones who refuse to do anything to prevent the rich from get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class.
How again are your rich different than our rich?
And how indeed are there so nearly equal numbers of wealthy in both parties?
The divisions of class are hazy in the USA , and do not fall where proponents of class warfare wish they would.
-
There's this twisted mindset that believes that if "the rich gets richer", the poor must get poorer. When in reality, EVERYONE can get richer. Just because the rich might get richer in overall amount, doesn't take away that the middle class, and poor can get richer at a much greater %, than 'the rich do".
The left gets so stircrazy with the overall numbers that some people make/earn. Of course you rarely hear them obsess over Soros' fortune....or the Kennedy's....or the Kerry's.....or the Clinton's. It'a always how Republicans that make too much, despite that the right gives exponentially more to charity than their Democrat politician counterparts. Point being, that under GOP policies, EVERYONE CAN get richer, which yes, includes "the rich". But apparently that's not acceptable, that 'the dreaded rich" get richer....unless of course, you're a Democrat
-
There are zero sum games , like chess or poker.
When you are playing one of these games you just can't all win , the game divides a finite prize and the more one wins the more another must loose.
Prosperity is not a zero sum game , everyone that creates value has potential to not only share it , but to help other persons create value also.
-
The KKK was NOT created by the Democratic Party. It was created by Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, a former slave trader and the only Confederate general who first enlisted as a private.
And there was a major shift of racists and neo racists in the 1970's and 1980's. By 1980 nearly all of them were Republicans.
-
The KKK was NOT created by the Democratic Party. It was created by Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, a former slave trader and the only Confederate general who first enlisted as a private.
And there was a major shift of racists and neo racists in the 1970's and 1980's. By 1980 nearly all of them were Republicans.
Why?
Why did Democrats abandon what had been their most reliable demographic.
Why would Republicans pick them up after a century of enmity on the eve of their impotence?
-
There are zero sum games , like chess or poker.
When you are playing one of these games you just can't all win , the game divides a finite prize and the more one wins the more another must loose.
Prosperity is not a zero sum game , everyone that creates value has potential to not only share it , but to help other persons create value also.
Precisely
-
Not only did the KKK begin with the Democrats, it was embraced, by folks like Al Gore's father and Senator Byrd. Only when it became increasingly apparent that the country, as a whole was rising up against such overt racism, did they wither on their puny democrat vines, to pratically a non-existent version........to be supplanted by reverse racism, as pushed by folks like Sharpton, Rev Wright, and the mutation of the NAACP
-
But our present system is not sharing the wealth. Every upper level job gets araise and more position gets made and the company tends to prosper but somehow its considered harmful to give the very bottom level a raise because it'll hurt the company
-
Kimba.....sharing is by definition, a voluntary endeavor. A company that doesn't reward its low level folks, might make money in the short term, but likely go belly up. Businesses that do a better job of distribuing its successes generally stay in business far longer. Its the free market, and we, the consumers, that make that decision. Not the arbitrary nature of Government that tries to decide who's to be a winner and who's to be a loser, based on nothing more than the whims of PC and so called elitest know-it-alls
-
But our present system is not sharing the wealth.
I am not as troubled by the current system as I am about the future.
I see a real looming storm out there in regard to the historic changes
in our economy due to the computer, internet, and robotics.
There is a huge segment of Americans that currently "get-by"
doing jobs that will no longer be done by humans in 10, 20, 25 years.
many bank employees, pilots, taxis, brick & mortar clerks, real estate agents,
printing pressman, and on and on and on and on and on and on
will over time go the way of the record store, Radio Shack,
toll booth attendants, TV repairman that come to your house,
the receptionist, how many more security guards would we hire without wifi cameras?
The world is changing fast....it is getting more high tech and many are not going
to be able to stay up.....and they will get angry and frustrated.
Not sure what is going to happen.
-
I se that as a problem too and its very wrong to place blame squarely on the ones not working lets just say. Pitchfolks are very hard to stop.
-
CU
I predict the posdible first place problems will seriously start is West Virginia. I very much doubt once the coal comppany perfect automated mining the citizens will be happy. Im pretty sure it's gonna happen pretty soon
-
There is a huge segment of Americans that currently "get-by"
doing jobs that will no longer be done by humans in 10, 20, 25 years.
many bank employees...
(http://www.vantagepi.com/assets/images/press/vantage_property_investors-press_logos-san_francisco_business_times.png)
Exclusive: Robots pursue banking careers in San Francisco
Jun 8, 2015
TODD JOHNSON | SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES
Robots have enjoyed phenomenal success on the nation's factory floors. Now they've got their eye on banking. Sterling Bank & Trust has "hired" two robots as greeters at the bank's new locations opening in Cupertino and Alhambra, in the Los Angeles area. As part of their training, the two robots have made appearances at the bank's San Francisco branches. Credit for bringing the robots on board goes to the bank's owner, Scott Seligman of San Francisco-based Seligman & Associates.
He got the idea after reading a Wall Street Journal story about the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ relying on robots to better serve customers in Japan. Sterling Bank says the robots' appearances have drawn an enthusiastic response from customers, many of them Asian.
The robots are especially popular with customers' children and grandchildren, said Steve Adams, senior vice president of Sterling Bank & Trust. They especially enjoy the robots having fun demonstrating their kung fu moves and dancing to Psy's song "Gangnam Style." That is when the robots aren't hard at work greeting customers or handing out bankers' business cards. And the cute factor can't be overlooked, with their blinking eyes and gestures.
(http://s16.postimg.org/5i42aelp1/adamssteve060515tj_40.jpg)
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/06/robots-banking-careers-san-francisco-sterling-bank.html
-
Except for anthracite used to make steel, the coal industry should just die. There is no such thing as clean coal, and coal as a fuel should be replaced.