- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 15, 2019 at 12:33 PM #813974November 17, 2019 at 3:14 PM #813984FlyerInHiGuest
Ucodegen, I’ll take what you say at face value. If the rural areas are doing well under Republicans, they are welcomed to carry on and enjoy the fruits of Republican policies. i wish they would stop bitching about us Democrats. I am quite happy with the politics of the big metropolitan areas.
November 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM #813987PCinSDGuest[quote=FlyerInHi]Ucodegen, I’ll take what you say at face value. If the rural areas are doing well under Republicans, they are welcomed to carry on and enjoy the fruits of Republican policies. i wish they would stop bitching about us Democrats. I am quite happy with the politics of the big metropolitan areas.[/quote]
Stop crying, ffs. It’s unseemly.November 19, 2019 at 12:03 AM #813995temeculaguyParticipant[quote=ucodegen][quote=FlyerInHi]Wow, a Democrat won the governor’s race in Kentucky against the Republican incumbent. Add that to the Democrats eviscerating Republicans in Virginia. Virginia is becoming another California. all that good jobs are in states held by Democrats. That is pretty good indication of the effectiveness of economic policies. Money talks.[/quote]
Riiiiggghhhtt… Try some history. It takes several years for the policies of a Governor or Legislative body to have an effect. The San Diego pension crisis has been building for years. How about Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago? What tends to happen is that there is an economic build-up AND THEN everybody feels so flush with cash thinking that any half brained spending idea is a good idea.. so the voters go for it, after all the state’s coffers are full – AND THEN….Here are some interesting refs
How Decades Of Democratic Rule Ruined Some Of Our Finest Cities
Detroit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit#Non-Partisan_Elections
Look at the period from 1962 to current.Flint, Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Flint,_Michigan#1974_Charter
Look at the period from 1975 to current.Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Chicago#List_of_mayors
Look at 1931 to current.Remember, California had Republican governors as well as Democrat governors.
- 1959-1967 8yrs Pat Brown – Democrat
- 1967-1975 8yrs Ronald Reagan – Republican
- 1975-1983 8yrs Jerry Brown – Democrat
- 1983-1991 8yrs George Deukmejian – Republican
- 1991-1999 8yrs Pete Wilson – Republican
- 1999-2003 4yrs Gray Davis – Democrat (recalled)
- 2003-2011 8yrs Arnold Schwarzenegger – Republican
- 2011-2019 8yrs Jerry Brown – Democrat
- 2019- Gavin Newsom – Democrat
Looks like a more balanced approach is best for state growth and success!
You mentioned that Virginia is becoming another ‘California’.. if you look at the history of Virginia, you’ll see that governors were Democrats from 1886 to 1970, then became Republican for 12 years, Democrat for 12 years, Republican for 8 years, Democrat for 8 years, Republican for 4 years, Democrat for 8. – becoming more balanced.. Hummm, maybe a more balance approach works?[/quote]
Purple is good! nuff said
November 19, 2019 at 2:35 AM #813997ucodegenParticipant[quote=temeculaguy]
Purple is good! nuff said[/quote]Me too. I don’t worry about getting stuff passed, so I actually like a dead-locked Congress/President. It prevents stupid legislation from being passed. Legislation that is really needed tends to get through(though not always) and some stupid stuff still gets through. Each party tends to have some stupid ideas.. ie. AOC Socialistic tendencies vs Republicans getting religion and trying to throw out Roe vs Wade, ignoring separation of Church and State….
On needed legislation not making it through, I have seen indications of both parties agreeing in principle on the legislation but the parties want to have it pass on ‘their’ watch vs the opposing party’s watch, just so they can lay claim to being the party passing it (appearance seems more important than reality?)
November 19, 2019 at 2:36 AM #813996ucodegenParticipant[quote=burghMan][quote=ucodegen]It takes several years for the policies of a Governor or Legislative body to have an effect. [/quote]
Does the lag in policy and effect also apply to presidents?[/quote]
Simple answer – yes.
More complicated answer – to a large part yes, presidents can also hand their successor a ‘time bomb’ – an example that many don’t believe is actually the ACA (aka Obama Care). Note that it was passed many years before it came into force, and it came into force towards the mid-end point of Obama’s second term. The time bomb part is the ‘sponsoring’ or ‘aid’ for those whose incomes are lower than a certain threshold (which is approx the lower 30% to 40% income threshold by population count). There was never any direct ‘line-item’ in the budget. It is more of a continuing ‘entitlement’. There are approx 300 Million people in the US (including children). If there is an average financial assistance of $300/month per person below that income threshold, that ends up being $3,600 per person per year or $1.08 trillion a year on what is basically unfunded mandates. I know that I was charged nearly $1,000/month for health care – no prior, no existing problems, on a bronze plan as an individual. That also means the $300/month average assist per person is probably not far off. Insurance costs jump as you get older.Another one is the overheated markets handed over from Clinton to Bush. The ironic part of this is that it is starting to look like Trump is going to hand an over extended market over to his successor. We have yet to see whether the addressing of China’s abuse of the market really pays positive dividends. (I’m not really upset at China – they have responsibility for their people and country, more bothered by ‘our’ or the US’s behavior – and not thinking about all the hidden costs associated with outsourcing and tech transfers)
November 19, 2019 at 6:42 AM #814000FlyerInHiGuestI’m not crying. I love California, and NY. And I’m loving how California transplants are making Nevada more like California, less the state income taxes. Now I love Virginia. I used to think they were a bunch of redneck who worship Jefferson Davis. Glad they renamed the highway.
What’s up with people in Mississippi always bitching about San Francisco? Most of them have not even been to California. They only wish. AOC is the new villain to them, haha. Most of them have never even set foot in NYC.
November 19, 2019 at 12:39 PM #814006PCinSDGuest[quote=FlyerInHi]I’m not crying. What’s up with people in Mississippi always bitching about San Francisco? Most of them have not even been to California. They only wish. AOC is the new villain to them, haha. Most of them have never even set foot in NYC.[/quote]
I said you were crying, so it’s a fact. Seriously, it makes you seem unhinged. NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.Please tell us some stories about all of the fake encounters you’ve had with folks who live in Mississippi.
November 20, 2019 at 5:43 AM #814010FlyerInHiGuestNobody from Mississippi. But right now I have a contractor from Texas, mid 50s, white dude. I’m pretty sure he does drugs, because he disappears for days. I don’t care because he’s an independent contractor and does good work. The guy listens to AM talk radio, the kind that supports Trump. Did a series of jobs all his life, owns nothing. Doubtful he has heath insurance. But I’ll ask at an opportune time.
I hope Republican policies do him well in old age, if not, oh well…. he made his bed, he can lie in it.November 20, 2019 at 5:44 AM #814009FlyerInHiGuestDup
November 20, 2019 at 7:01 AM #814011burghManParticipant[quote=ucodegen]
Simple answer – yes.
More complicated answer – to a large part yes, presidents can also hand their successor a ‘time bomb’ – an example that many don’t believe is actually the ACA (aka Obama Care). Note that it was passed many years before it came into force, and it came into force towards the mid-end point of Obama’s second term. The time bomb part is the ‘sponsoring’ or ‘aid’ for those whose incomes are lower than a certain threshold (which is approx the lower 30% to 40% income threshold by population count). There was never any direct ‘line-item’ in the budget. It is more of a continuing ‘entitlement’. There are approx 300 Million people in the US (including children). If there is an average financial assistance of $300/month per person below that income threshold, that ends up being $3,600 per person per year or $1.08 trillion a year on what is basically unfunded mandates. I know that I was charged nearly $1,000/month for health care – no prior, no existing problems, on a bronze plan as an individual. That also means the $300/month average assist per person is probably not far off. Insurance costs jump as you get older.
[/quote]That math makes no sense. ACA pays 100% of insurance for only a small portion of the population. It doesn’t subsidize everybody’s insurance. Yet you counted the full cost of every person in the country when calculating the cost of assistance. If you are paying $1000/month, you can’t count yourself in the cost to the government. Fake news, easily dismissed with a basic check of the arithmetic.
November 20, 2019 at 7:47 AM #814012spdrunParticipantThe real stat is 8 million people get subsidies at an average cost of $6300 per annum. So closer to $50 billion per year total, some of which prevents future ER costs by making preventative care available.
Meanwhile, we’ve spent $400 billion or more every year on our endless homicide sprees in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. We should spend more on our own country, less on endless wars that are lost causes anyway.
November 20, 2019 at 8:36 AM #814013burghManParticipant[quote=spdrun]The real stat is 8 million people get subsidies at an average cost of $6300 per annum. So closer to $50 billion per year total, some of which prevents future ER costs by making preventative care available.
Meanwhile, we’ve spent $400 billion or more every year on our endless homicide sprees in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. We should spend more on our own country, less on endless wars that are lost causes anyway.[/quote]
Exactly. The cost of ACA covered by tax dollars is a tiny fraction of the federal budget and much of that is offset because it lowers the total cost of healthcare.
November 20, 2019 at 11:36 AM #814014PCinSDGuest[quote=FlyerInHi]Nobody from Mississippi. But right now I have a contractor from Texas, mid 50s, white dude. I’m pretty sure he does drugs, because he disappears for days. I don’t care because he’s an independent contractor and does good work. The guy listens to AM talk radio, the kind that supports Trump. Did a series of jobs all his life, owns nothing. Doubtful he has heath insurance. But I’ll ask at an opportune time.
I hope Republican policies do him well in old age, if not, oh well…. he made his bed, he can lie in it.[/quote]
Just so there’s no confusion later, you made sweeping claims about your fellow citizens in Mississipi, despite never having met a single person who lives in Mississippi? Why would you do that? You can’t bring any data to back up your claim about this group of folks you’ve never met? I gotta say, it makes you look like a deplorable hyper-partisan bozo who can’t stop crying.That’s some in depth knowledge you have about your contractors politics and personal finances. I’m shocked how your description of him, like your other neat stories of folks you’ve encountered, is exactly how you depict those who dont think like you. You like to claim that those who dont think like you are broke and own nothing. It’s also possible he doesn’t exist, but rather creates multiple accounts to troll political blogs after being banned.
Next time you see this slim energetic craftsman, let him know if he switches to opium and becomes a drunk he will live well into his 90’s. Please give him a new computer as a tip. He could probably give you advice on which one to purchase.
November 20, 2019 at 2:09 PM #814016FlyerInHiGuestThe only claim I made about people from Mississippi is that they like to bitch about San Francisco. It’s an analogy about rural folks who like to complain about the “liberal elites”, who are really just middle class and not elite at all.
You can take my anecdotes at a face value or not. It’s but to you. They illustrate how certain people have bankrupt culture, vote against against their own interests and then bitch, but don’t look in the mirror when things turn bad.
My point was that I enjoy living in a progressive areas, and that’s exactly why I don’t live in what I consider deplorable areas. My point was that if red states policies are working, then good for them. I just don’t see it in the objective data about wealth… remember this is about money. There is tons of data on that. What I say is less crazy than calling AOC crazy. AOC has good ideas and good policies.
I have another young contractor, white dude, in his early 20s. From rural California. He grew up riding horses in a “wholesome” environment. Single dad at a young age — how lovely! Loves country music. Tattoos all over. I am also sure he does drugs because he cancels last minute several days a week. And when he works, some crazy girlfriend calls several times a day. No health insurance. He thinks Trump is fine. The guy does good work, however. I judge his lifestyle, but I appreciate the work.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.