Socialist hellhole California moves from 8th to 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing France

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Maybe just maybe more is going on here than just taxes on rich people.
Click to expand...
But you guys said taxing rich people would destroy the economy, you didn't make any additions or discuss any nuance, you said 'MORE TAXES = BAD!', more taxes came and the world didn't end, it got better. Proof against conservative economic theory, proof for liberal economic theory in action.

As the evidence continues to mount I'll be sure to post it here and remind you
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Yes....I learned that's the way debates happen too.
There is a topic proposed. If proposed by a biased party it is considered the 1st salvo of the debate especially if it specifies criteria to support a particular viewpoint of that debate.

Someone presented conjecture about specific contributions by a certain class of individuals with unsubstantiated support for that argument.

They that posit the argument should provide the verifiable (or at least visible) proof in support of it.
Or they should expect derision.
Click to expand...
Yes, derision. What you earned today.

What exactly have you said that is worthwhile? You've contributed nothing. Just sit back and chuck criticism. Typical right wing lazy goon.
 
choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Blah, blah, blah,, you said 'MORE TAXES = BAD!', more taxes came and the world didn't end, it got better. Proof against conservative economic theory, proof for liberal economic theory in action.<snip>
Click to expand...
Fogdog said:
Yes, derision. What you earned today.

What exactly have you said that is worthwhile? You've contributed nothing. Just sit back and chuck criticism. Typical right wing lazy goon.
Click to expand...
So, you're gonna sit back on your superiority as well with a "he who smelt it, dealt it" defense?

You guys are sooooooo good @ this! You should give classes!
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Again, another mindless critique. This is what the conservative movement has devolved into.

That and spouting mindless discredited economic ideas.
Click to expand...

Why waste my time? The guy still denies recycling is a "for profit" business. Last time I proved a point with him he called it a conspiracy theory. The guy is an idiot.

What the hell does "The Drought" have to do with anything? Other than dead lawns.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
a. Give 1,000 people $1,000

b. Give 1 person $1,000,000

Which situation is more likely to increase economic growth?

Traditional conservative economic theory says b because then that person can go on and invest in business and create jobs

Traditional liberal economic theory says a because 1,000 people are more likely to spend more money than 1 person is to spend $1,000,000. In situation a, the entire million dollars will go to stimulating the economy. In situation b, only the amount that the one person spends will go to stimulating the economy.

Situation b also assumes high demand. It doesn't matter how low tax rates go for the upper-class, if the poor and middle-class don't have enough money to buy things with, they won't, adding to the stagnation.

It's not like the poor and middle-class don't deserve a wage hike, real minimum wage has remained stagnant since 1968, that's almost half a century boys and girls. It's time to happen and it will happen eventually because the labor movement is getting stronger and progressive values are becoming more and more widespread.
choomer said:
So, you're gonna sit back on your superiority as well with a "he who smelt it, dealt it" defense?

You guys are sooooooo good @ this! You should give classes!
Click to expand...
California = 4.1% growth after enacting traditionally liberal economic policies, Nebraska = 0.2% after implementing traditionally conservative economic policies. You can start there, you should start there
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
But you guys said taxing rich people would destroy the economy, you didn't make any additions or discuss any nuance, you said 'MORE TAXES = BAD!', more taxes came and the world didn't end, it got better. Proof against conservative economic theory, proof for liberal economic theory in action.

As the evidence continues to mount I'll be sure to post it here and remind you
Click to expand...
Man, California doesn't have high taxes. Their taxes are only high compared to other states. But state taxes are a fraction of what federal taxes are.

California is still part of the US and its citizens pay federal taxes on top of state. The Fed taxes are historically fairly low. Therefore taxes in California are still low, despite being raised.

This isn't proof of anything. California, like I said earlier, California is fortunate to have so many natural resources and to be the epicenter of so many things. It would take an absolute imbicil to not govern California well.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
Why waste my time? The guy still denies recycling is a "for profit" business. Last time I proved a point with him he called it a conspiracy theory. The guy is an idiot.

What the hell does "The Drought" have to do with anything? Other than dead lawns.
Click to expand...
Plants = 2% of a $2.5 trillion economy (twice the size of any other state)
Water = good for plants
If no water = no plants
Drought = no water
How +4.1% with no water with armageddon taxes?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Man, California doesn't have high taxes. Their taxes are only high compared to other states. But state taxes are a fraction of what federal taxes are.

California is still part of the US and its citizens pay federal taxes on top of state. The Fed taxes are historically fairly low. Therefore taxes in California are still low, despite being raised.

This isn't proof of anything. California, like I said earlier, California is fortunate to have so many natural resources and to be the epicenter of so many things. It would take an absolute imbicil to not govern California well.
Click to expand...
There are 50 different examples in the country to use as evidence, CA and KS support my theory, go get some evidence that supports yours and post it
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The problem with "measuring a geographically defined area" (a state) as a complete economy is it becomes difficult to isolate the variables as belonging to or distinctly arising from that particular geographically defined area.

In other words, difficult to measure with accuracy since trade ISN'T confined within that area and flows in and out.

Plus any government figures should be viewed with skepticism. For instance, there are a lot of federal government pension types that live in California, and THOSE dollars didn't come from trade or commerce, they came from a fiat money counterfeiting process.

One could easily make a case for HOW MUCH MORE California would generate in the absence of confiscatory taxation.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Yes....I learned that's the way debates happen too.
There is a topic proposed. If proposed by a biased party it is considered the 1st salvo of the debate especially if it specifies criteria to support a particular viewpoint of that debate.

Someone presented conjecture about specific contributions by a certain class of individuals with unsubstantiated support for that argument.

They that posit the argument should provide the verifiable (or at least visible) proof in support of it.
Or they should expect derision.
Click to expand...

I like that you used the word "derision".
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Again, another mindless critique. This is what the conservative movement has devolved into.

That and spouting mindless discredited economic ideas.
Click to expand...
choomer said:
So, you're gonna sit back on your superiority as well with a "he who smelt it, dealt it" defense?

You guys are sooooooo good @ this! You should give classes!
Click to expand...
And Bohemian Grove. LOL

Paddy did defend his argument. You reject it without discussion. Now you insist that I defend Paddy's position when you just sit there and repeat yourself? You can't support even the very weak points you made in your first response, can you?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
Why waste my time? The guy still denies recycling is a "for profit" business. Last time I proved a point with him he called it a conspiracy theory. The guy is an idiot.

What the hell does "The Drought" have to do with anything? Other than dead lawns.
Click to expand...
Why think, why write down what you are thinking, why put it out there for others to critique? Because that is how you formulate and test ideas.

The drought had significant impact across the state. Take a look at what is happening to the Sacramento delta. Take a look at the permanent changes happening in the forests around Yosemite. Take a look at levels of groundwater around the state that will take decades to recharge. Take a look at what's happening to the almond orchards. The list goes on. Southern Cal is still in drought and those wildfires have nothing to do with your lawn other than they were part of the same picture.

So refute what I said. A two word response isn't.
 
choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
<snip>
California = 4.1% growth after enacting traditionally liberal economic policies, Nebraska = 0.2% after implementing traditionally conservative economic policies. You can start there, you should start there
Click to expand...
Well I'm sure that upon reading that HuffPo feel good story supported in large part by WaPo links (both being such sterling examples of journalistic integrity as noted here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) the natural tendency for someone going to those liberally biased news outlets to believe what they read there is completely expected.

But here is a different take supported by this announcing projected Cali state budget deficit of $1.9B even with the higher taxes.
This says that the above is under reported by an additional $300M due to the Jan. stock market crash and Lower Capital Gains Estimates while still averring "Nevertheless, Tax Revenues Still Growing. While the administration lowered its tax revenue estimates since January, the state’s overall General Fund tax revenues (administration estimates for which are listed in Figure 1) still are estimated to grow each year during the state “budget window”: up 5.4 percent in 2015-16 and another 4.0 percent in 2016-17. (Sales taxes grow at a slower rate in 2016-17 as Proposition 30 tax increases start to expire.)"

Is it just me, or do the words "estimate, estimates, estimated" not play a large part in that quoted above paragraphs about future data?
Even 2014-15 data has the caveat that "*In addition, the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million, mainly due to a reduction in personal income tax revenues booked to 2013-14 under the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies." which means to me that there were less people to tax individually under those "complex budgetary revenue accrual policies" which are never defined. Perhaps they mean stuff like the estimation revision of 2014-15 data posted May 2016.

A historical view of of California population numbers (since it is the state with the highest population) shows a population growth of 5 million between 2000-2009 but a growth of less that 500,000 between 2009-2015 even with the reported inclusion of illegal immigrants (even those held in detention centers) which came into practice in 2010.
Seems to me that even though the population is still growing (@ 10% of the growth it had in the previous 9 year growth numbers) it is offset by former California citizens leaving the utopia built from tax.

So...you tell me which estimated numbers are cooked, and which are not.

Fogdog said:
And Bohemian Grove. LOL

Paddy did defend his argument. You reject it without discussion. Now you insist that I defend Paddy's position when you just sit there and repeat yourself? You can't support even the very weak points you made in your first response, can you?
Click to expand...
Read on and then come back w/ your chosen supporting documentation.
 
Last edited:
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
a. Give 1,000 people $1,000

b. Give 1 person $1,000,000

Which situation is more likely to increase economic growth?

Traditional conservative economic theory says b because then that person can go on and invest in business and create jobs

Traditional liberal economic theory says a because 1,000 people are more likely to spend more money than 1 person is to spend $1,000,000. In situation a, the entire million dollars will go to stimulating the economy. In situation b, only the amount that the one person spends will go to stimulating the economy.

Situation b also assumes high demand. It doesn't matter how low tax rates go for the upper-class, if the poor and middle-class don't have enough money to buy things with, they won't, adding to the stagnation.

It's not like the poor and middle-class don't deserve a wage hike, real minimum wage has remained stagnant since 1968, that's almost half a century boys and girls. It's time to happen and it will happen eventually because the labor movement is getting stronger and progressive values are becoming more and more widespread.

California = 4.1% growth after enacting traditionally liberal economic policies, Nebraska = 0.2% after implementing traditionally conservative economic policies. You can start there, you should start there
Click to expand...
Since when has the government given 1 million to someone?

Bad example. The millionare most definitely stimulates the economy just like the 1000 people.

He spends his money as well on his home, eating, taxes, toys, cars, products and services.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Well I'm sure that upon reading that HuffPo feel good story supported in large part by WaPo links (both being such sterling examples of journalistic integrity as noted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) the natural tendency for someone going to those liberally biased news outlets to believe what they read there is completely expected.

But here is a different take supported by this announcing projected Cali state budget deficit of $1.9B even with the higher taxes.
This says that the above is under reported by an additional $300M due to the Jan. stock market crash and Lower Capital Gains Estimates while still averring "Nevertheless, Tax Revenues Still Growing. While the administration lowered its tax revenue estimates since January, the state’s overall General Fund tax revenues (administration estimates for which are listed in Figure 1) still are estimated to grow each year during the state “budget window”: up 5.4 percent in 2015-16 and another 4.0 percent in 2016-17. (Sales taxes grow at a slower rate in 2016-17 as Proposition 30 tax increases start to expire.)"

Is it just me, or do the words "estimate, estimates, estimated" not play a large part in that quoted above paragraphs about future data?
Even 2014-15 data has the caveat that "*In addition, the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million, mainly due to a reduction in personal income tax revenues booked to 2013-14 under the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies." which means to me that there were less people to tax individually under those "complex budgetary revenue accrual policies" which are never defined. Perhaps they mean stuff like the estimation revision of 2014-15 data posted May 2016.

A historical view of of California population numbers (since it is the state with the highest population) shows a population growth of 5 million between 2000-2009 but a growth of less that 500,000 between 2009-2015 even with the reported inclusion of illegal immigrants (even those held in detention centers) which came into practice in 2010.
Seems to me that even though the population is still growing (@ 1% of the growth it had in the previous 9 year growth numbers) it is offset by former California citizens leaving the utopia built from tax.

So...you tell me which estimated numbers are cooked, and which are not.



Read on and then come back w/ your chosen supporting documentation.
Click to expand...
You posted links to a bunch of right wing crap and didn't explain yourself in your own words. At least you didn't post the propaganda in it's entirety, so thanks for that. The problem with everything you say is the claim that California is in some sort of economic straits when the reality is it's doing just fine. Especially when compared to fucking Kansas. So these right wing blogs are pretty much bogus echo chamber shit. For example, your last link regarding a National Review article. It was so jam packed with crappy falsehoods that it doesn't bear a careful examination. But here is one tiny factoid that I will refute just as an example:

A third of America’s welfare recipients reside in California. Nearly a quarter of Californians live below the poverty line.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425885/california-high-taxes-immigration-democrats

Wow, that sounds like a big deal, right? On the other hand, a lot of people live in California, so citing straight numbers is deceptive, which was the author's intent. That intent is seen throughout the article. And the same deception is seen in all of the links that I had the patience to open.

Here is reality: As a percentage of revenue, CA is among the least reliant on welfare. So, we have a populous state with expanding world class economy and relatively low welfare revenue cost. It's a good thing, wouldn't you agree? That's what paddy is talking about. What I'm talking about is the shitty way right wingers treat data. Because they never ask what the data really means. And so you become the tool of the Koch Brothers and others.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top