I’m still waiting for a “nuanced and granular answer less than 10 thousand words” from somebody.
Another negative piece
- Thread starter poke00
- Start date
I’m still waiting for a “nuanced and granular answer less than 10 thousand words” from somebody.
You're bloviating about California and don't know anything about it? No, Reagan is not why housing is unaffordable in California. Try again.
Lets do connections to foreign powers.
You do Russia.
I’ll do China.
Then you can explain how one is bad and one isn’t.
You talk in platitudes laced with nonsensical emotion.
When Reagan took office the Reps controlled the Senate and the Dims controlled the House. You know how a bill gets to the President's desk? Why do you think we can not get a COVID stimulus package approved right now with a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican Prez?
Reagan for 6 years had a split congress. His last 2 years it was all Democratic.
Last edited:
So deficit spending had no effect on inflation?
You do know it also involved almost bankrupting their public education system due to lack of funding for state services including education.
What’s that got to do with why California voted blue after the savior Reagan lowered taxes? Deficit spending was his gift to both California and our country. Inflation resulted, especially in California with deficit spending and them not willing to do without basic state services like public education, safety, and emergency services.
Our current deficit spending by this administration is setting records and we’ll be paying for that with inflationary costs out the wazzou.
You bitch about deficit spending now while Dims want WAAAAAAAY more stimulus money than Reps while at the same time forcing businesses to stay closed to prevent a casedemic?
You skipped over how a bill reaches the Prez desk and the make-up of Congress during Reagan's tenure.
Here are the facts on Reagan in Cali...Dumbazz....Did not bankrupt shit....
Governorship of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia
First term: 1967-1971
Tax increase[edit]
Reagan campaigned as a tax cutter, promising to squeeze, cut and trim. Once in office he froze government hiring but increased spending by 9%. He worked with Democrat Jess Unruh, the Assembly Speaker, to secure a series of tax increases that raised rates and balanced the budget, while also cutting property taxes. The sales tax was raised from 3% to 5%. The highest income tax bracket saw a rise from 7% tax to 10%. Taxes on banks, corporate profits and inheritance were increased slightly. Liquor taxes jumped from $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon; and cigarette taxes from three cents to ten cents per pack.[13][14][15]
Second term (1971–1975)
School finance reform[edit]
The 1971 state supreme court decision in Serrano v. Priest required the state to equalize spending on schools between rich and poor districts. Facing a strong Democratic opposition in the legislature, Reagan negotiated compromises with Speaker Bob Moretti that would be attractive to key elements of the Republican base. He cut deals with Moretti, who wanted to satisfy his Democratic base and also build a leadership image as he planned to run for governor himself in 1974.[32] Reagan's strategy was to keep costs down, cut property taxes for home owners, limit school spending, and provide higher spending for poorer school districts. For support he looked to Republicans, business groups, the school lobby, and some Assembly Democrats. The final legislation as signed by the governor included the main provision of a new annual grant of $454 million to local school districts, of which $229 million was to reduce school tax rates and $220 million was to supplement existing school aid for poor districts. Special assistance of $83 million was allocated to inner city schools, a Democratic constituency. In addition there were side payments to keep other elements happy. The property tax exemption for homeowners was raised from $750 to $1750; this was a Republican constituency. Renters--a major Democratic constituency--received an income tax credit of $25 to $45. Businesses--a Republican constituency--received a cut in the property tax on their inventories. Local governments were paid an extra $7 million a year to set aside open space. This appealed to local officials of both parties and to the new environmentalist movement which at the time was bipartisan. Educators were pleased with $40 million for early childhood education. To pay for all of this, the state sales tax was raised from 5.0% to 6.0%. This probably annoyed Democrats more than Republicans but the reverse was the case when taxes on profits were raised. They went up from 7.6% to 9.0% for corporations and from 11.6% to 13.0% for banks. In addition to new taxes some federal money was used, as well as increased revenue from older taxes. Reagan insisted on adding a major restriction: local governments and school districts could not raise taxes without voter approval. Liberals were upset, but agreed to the restriction. As it happened, property values went up steadily and the same rates produced more dollars every year. The result was victory for both Reagan and Moretti. It gave the governor a reputation for successful deal-making that pleased multiple constituencies. At the same time Reagan's public rhetoric appealed to hard-line conservatives nationally, his actions in Sacramento appealed to moderates. [33][34][35]
They are trying to let illegals in as fast as the legals leave, the ones that can afford it
As always, OKSTATE1 gets it. Where does OKSTATE1, Medic007, Alpha Woke and I fail miserably? Getting through to our opponent is completely beyond our reach.
Not an opponent just disagree politically.
So, why has the state turned reliably Blue despite all of this conservative success?
Because the poor in Dim cities and states need more government handouts you have them addicted to because the economy the Dims built does not work for them, as Dims now admit and tell us whites in these areas have intentionally oppressed minorities and hence the need for more taxes in those states to pay reparations for your racist sins. Yet they want non-racists in midwestern states to pay as well.
You need illegals to vote to keep you in power and they can get more free shit than the legals in your state. You literally have to bribe people to vote for you.
Last edited:
You bitch about deficit spending now while Dims want WAAAAAAAY more stimulus money than Reps while at the same time forcing businesses to stay closed to prevent a casedemic?
You skipped over how a bill reaches the Prez desk and the make-up of Congress during Reagan's tenure.
Here are the facts on Reagan in Cali...Dumbazz....Did not bankrupt shit....
Governorship of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
First term: 1967-1971
Tax increase[edit]
Reagan campaigned as a tax cutter, promising to squeeze, cut and trim. Once in office he froze government hiring but increased spending by 9%. He worked with Democrat Jess Unruh, the Assembly Speaker, to secure a series of tax increases that raised rates and balanced the budget, while also cutting property taxes. The sales tax was raised from 3% to 5%. The highest income tax bracket saw a rise from 7% tax to 10%. Taxes on banks, corporate profits and inheritance were increased slightly. Liquor taxes jumped from $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon; and cigarette taxes from three cents to ten cents per pack.[13][14][15]
Second term (1971–1975)
School finance reform[edit]
The 1971 state supreme court decision in Serrano v. Priest required the state to equalize spending on schools between rich and poor districts. Facing a strong Democratic opposition in the legislature, Reagan negotiated compromises with Speaker Bob Moretti that would be attractive to key elements of the Republican base. He cut deals with Moretti, who wanted to satisfy his Democratic base and also build a leadership image as he planned to run for governor himself in 1974.[32] Reagan's strategy was to keep costs down, cut property taxes for home owners, limit school spending, and provide higher spending for poorer school districts. For support he looked to Republicans, business groups, the school lobby, and some Assembly Democrats. The final legislation as signed by the governor included the main provision of a new annual grant of $454 million to local school districts, of which $229 million was to reduce school tax rates and $220 million was to supplement existing school aid for poor districts. Special assistance of $83 million was allocated to inner city schools, a Democratic constituency. In addition there were side payments to keep other elements happy. The property tax exemption for homeowners was raised from $750 to $1750; this was a Republican constituency. Renters--a major Democratic constituency--received an income tax credit of $25 to $45. Businesses--a Republican constituency--received a cut in the property tax on their inventories. Local governments were paid an extra $7 million a year to set aside open space. This appealed to local officials of both parties and to the new environmentalist movement which at the time was bipartisan. Educators were pleased with $40 million for early childhood education. To pay for all of this, the state sales tax was raised from 5.0% to 6.0%. This probably annoyed Democrats more than Republicans but the reverse was the case when taxes on profits were raised. They went up from 7.6% to 9.0% for corporations and from 11.6% to 13.0% for banks. In addition to new taxes some federal money was used, as well as increased revenue from older taxes. Reagan insisted on adding a major restriction: local governments and school districts could not raise taxes without voter approval. Liberals were upset, but agreed to the restriction. As it happened, property values went up steadily and the same rates produced more dollars every year. The result was victory for both Reagan and Moretti. It gave the governor a reputation for successful deal-making that pleased multiple constituencies. At the same time Reagan's public rhetoric appealed to hard-line conservatives nationally, his actions in Sacramento appealed to moderates. [33][34][35]
@dnhall , I see you ignore your lies and go post and change the subject again. So much deflection.
So far, Obama tops them all and Trump won't catch up. 6.8 trillion in deficits and 8.6 trillion added to debt
Average Budget Deficit per year last 20 years
Trump: 3.8 trillion thus far in 4 years .95 per year
Obama: 6.8 trillion in 8 years .85 average
GWB: 3.3 trillion in 8 years. .825 average
What Budget Deficits Hide
Each year's deficit adds to the debt. But the total amount a president adds to the debt each year is usually more than the deficit. All presidents can employ a sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit. They can borrow from federal retirement funds in off-budget transactions. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987.17 There were more working people contributing via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits. The Fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes.
The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys. That makes the deficit by year less than what's added to the debt by year.
The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys. That makes the deficit by year less than what's added to the debt by year.
For example, $8.588 trillion was added to the national debt under Obama. But his total budget deficits totaled $6.781 trillion.
Factors That Influence the Deficit
There are three factors that can influence each president's deficit.
Average Budget Deficit per year last 20 years
Trump: 3.8 trillion thus far in 4 years .95 per year
Obama: 6.8 trillion in 8 years .85 average
GWB: 3.3 trillion in 8 years. .825 average
What Budget Deficits Hide
Each year's deficit adds to the debt. But the total amount a president adds to the debt each year is usually more than the deficit. All presidents can employ a sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit. They can borrow from federal retirement funds in off-budget transactions. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987.17 There were more working people contributing via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits. The Fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes.
The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys. That makes the deficit by year less than what's added to the debt by year.
The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys. That makes the deficit by year less than what's added to the debt by year.
For example, $8.588 trillion was added to the national debt under Obama. But his total budget deficits totaled $6.781 trillion.
Factors That Influence the Deficit
There are three factors that can influence each president's deficit.
- The president has no control over the mandatory budget or its deficit. That includes Social Security and Medicare benefits.1 These are the two biggest expenses any president has. The mandatory budget estimates what these programs will cost. The acts of Congress that created the programs also mandate the spending. Unless the president can get Congress to remove or change them, he's got to live with that spending.
- The Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to control spending.2 The president’s budget is just a starting point. Each chamber of Congress prepares a discretionary spending budget. 3 They combine them into the final budget that the president reviews and signs. If a hitch in the budget process keeps the proposed budget from being signed into law, Congress can choose to keep their agencies running at the current budget levels or it can initiate a government shutdown
- Each president inherits many of his predecessors' policies. For example, presidents may suffer from lower revenue. Presidents who raise taxes quickly may become unpopular. This could result in tax cuts rarely disappearing. See Trump deficits caused by Obama (Obamacare)
Last edited:
Affluent locales turn blue because they become guilty they aren’t helping their fellow man and they are too ****ing self-important or lazy to actually help others themselves so they abdicate such responsibility to corrupt politicians so they can feel better about themselves.
You all will love this. We do business with someone and we got a garnishment order out of California for them, big scary official notice. During this same time Cali was violating Federal Law, they warned illegals about a planned ICE action, stonewalling ICE, not holding illegal felons for ICE when arrested, etc.. bragged about it.
I called my attorney and I said I see Cali ignoring these federal laws, so does Cali have jurisdiction here in Oklahoma? I asked would they not need to get a legal garnishment in Oklahoma for me to honor the garnishment? Basically the attorney laughed and said you are correct. I did not want to help a state that openly violates Federal law.
So I called them. I told them your state openly violates federal law in regards to ICE, I have been watching this on TV and I pay federal taxes. I said I am not helping you enforce this garnishment as a state that openly violates federal law and brags about it, and I do not recognize your jurisdiction in Oklahoma and if you get an Oklahoma court order directing me to comply with your garnishment I will. I was told I had to comply, blah, blah, etc... I told them how do you expect people to respect your laws when you do not respect federal laws? I am putting this notice in the shredder.
It was really fun to be honest, got to flip them the bone and tell them why. Have not heard one more word from them.
Fair is fair.
One way dare I say, I peacefully protested!!!
I called my attorney and I said I see Cali ignoring these federal laws, so does Cali have jurisdiction here in Oklahoma? I asked would they not need to get a legal garnishment in Oklahoma for me to honor the garnishment? Basically the attorney laughed and said you are correct. I did not want to help a state that openly violates Federal law.
So I called them. I told them your state openly violates federal law in regards to ICE, I have been watching this on TV and I pay federal taxes. I said I am not helping you enforce this garnishment as a state that openly violates federal law and brags about it, and I do not recognize your jurisdiction in Oklahoma and if you get an Oklahoma court order directing me to comply with your garnishment I will. I was told I had to comply, blah, blah, etc... I told them how do you expect people to respect your laws when you do not respect federal laws? I am putting this notice in the shredder.
It was really fun to be honest, got to flip them the bone and tell them why. Have not heard one more word from them.
Fair is fair.
One way dare I say, I peacefully protested!!!
Last edited:
@dnhall, I will let @Pancreek1 take over from here. I sincerely wish you good luck, your going to need it.
The difference, Obama inherited the Great Recession from Bush and Trump’s deficit came during economic prosperity he inherited from Obama (multiple months of economic growth) with deficits increased and caused by his tax cuts prior to the Pandemic bailout.
Usually during times of economic prosperity you pay down the deficit not add to it, especially since a Pandemic comes along and explodes spending even more.
No, inflation from deficit spending did not cause California's cost of living. It's pretty easy to look at things that cost more in California and look at why.
Eight years under the Messiah saw black American poverty go up and home ownership go down. My source is the U. S. Census Bureau. The FBI tells me black on black crime set records.
The "smartest" woman in the world ran for the long-legged Mack Daddy's third term. She received tepid support from black America.
Mack Daddy and Hillary gave us Candace Owens, Blexit and a TV reality star. Had Obama not been so bad, Trump would be building a building somewhere.
Trump's first quarter in office saw a 1.6 GDP growth rate. Obama left few of us outside the elite in economic prosperity.
The "smartest" woman in the world ran for the long-legged Mack Daddy's third term. She received tepid support from black America.
Mack Daddy and Hillary gave us Candace Owens, Blexit and a TV reality star. Had Obama not been so bad, Trump would be building a building somewhere.
Trump's first quarter in office saw a 1.6 GDP growth rate. Obama left few of us outside the elite in economic prosperity.
And yet, 38 million people choose to live there and they vote DEMOCRATIC because they do know Republican tax policies have created the greatest separation of wealth in the history of this country.
President Buffoon touts the stock market almost daily without ANY realization most Americans can’t afford to be IN the stock market! The Pandemic has further exacerbated the wealth gap as billionaires got richer while millions of Americans lost small businesses and jobs and many their homes and possessions.
Trump’s tax cuts and Pandemic response have added trillions of dollars of debt and only temporarily kept the common man afloat. They are now drowning.
Billionaires and the wealthy like Trump do nothing but ensure they remain billionaires by buying Congressmen and writing template legislation tax policy to ensure it. The little guy or the 99% aren’t even on the radar screen for Trump and the 1%.
The 99% will vote and I doubt they will ask for more of the same. He lost the popular vote by three million in 2016 and in 2020 he’ll lose that vote by more. Hopefully, the electoral college won’t be an issue this time around. I’m tired of an outdated concept like the electoral college being used to ignore the majority will of the people in the 21st century.
President Buffoon touts the stock market almost daily without ANY realization most Americans can’t afford to be IN the stock market! The Pandemic has further exacerbated the wealth gap as billionaires got richer while millions of Americans lost small businesses and jobs and many their homes and possessions.
Trump’s tax cuts and Pandemic response have added trillions of dollars of debt and only temporarily kept the common man afloat. They are now drowning.
Billionaires and the wealthy like Trump do nothing but ensure they remain billionaires by buying Congressmen and writing template legislation tax policy to ensure it. The little guy or the 99% aren’t even on the radar screen for Trump and the 1%.
The 99% will vote and I doubt they will ask for more of the same. He lost the popular vote by three million in 2016 and in 2020 he’ll lose that vote by more. Hopefully, the electoral college won’t be an issue this time around. I’m tired of an outdated concept like the electoral college being used to ignore the majority will of the people in the 21st century.
38 million Californians vote Democratic? Interesting. Got any data to back up that claim?
Maybe the "majority" needs to do a better job putting together a platform that includes the "minority." Our Founding Fathers were a brilliant bunch.
Sorry Hillary lost. She was the worst presidential candidate in history. Instead of reflecting on why she lost, you lefties have completely doubled down on stupid. Don't blame those of us who choose to not live like cockroaches for your misery. Demand better from the joke of a political party you support.
^^^dumbshit who spends his money on video games, tattoos, and soy toast instead of an IRA/401k.
This declaration is littered with bull.
All here can answer this question from my long ago M test except the one spewing this bull.
1 2 4 7 11 ? 22. Those here who can provide the number for the question mark can clearly define math's simplest equation. They can define all seven components of critical thinking. This author cannot.
Surely someone who thinks that all 38 million people in California vote Democrat understands second differences...
/sarcasm font
Most of us were born at night but not last night. Does our friend think he's addressing a gang of Syskatines?
So............you believe if it boiled down to 5 states with 51% of the popular vote, it would be ok for the other 45 states to be completely disenfranchised without a meaningful vote? If so, why does each state get 2 senators regardless of population, giving lowly Oklahoma equal power to California?
1. The Electoral College is brilliant and perfect, AND
2. There is ZERO chance a constitutional amendment to change it could EVER get approved, THEREFORE
3. I've always been fascinated that only liberals even ever bring it up. What does it have to do with the price of tea in Gotebo,....and how is it even relevant?
CPAs do very little number crunching, genius. You could use some grammar lessons, by the way.
You do realize that we currently let the 10 to 11 swing states choose the president. Not much difference really. All the other states are basically meaningless because they vote the same every year anyway.
Not even close to the same analogy, by a long shot. There were really only 6 swing states in 2016 (FL, PA, OH, MI, WI and IA) and THE ONLY reason those states were considered swing States is because 28 Red states offset 16 Blues such that those 6 became highlighted. If it were solely popular vote, those states wouldn't have mattered at all and the voters from 16 States would have said F.U. to the citizens of 34 other States. If ubanization population trends continue, there is a distinct possibility that the W. Coast, Chicago and the NE Coast (less than 25% of our country) could elect every president if it were based on popular vote, and 75% of the country could be completely disenfranchised. There is a reason our name is United States of America and not United People of America
Some estimates say 2 million illegals voted in Kalifornia in 2016 after Gov. Moonbeam signed the "Mexican Voter Act." Anyone could qualify for a driver license, then register to vote.
How many illegal immigrants are in California? You are saying all the illegals went out and voted and all voted for Hillary. Sounds crazy to me and even if it was true, she still would have won California.
You can look at it two ways. Maybe all those other states didn't matter and all you had to do was campaign and suffice 6 states to win an election. You can still use the electoral college, but it obviously needs to be tweaked.
I would rather split the the US in to 3 countries before adjusting the electoral college OR making the Federal Government responsible for only our defense and moving all issues of rights to each individual state.
At the rate we are going and Dims threatening to burn it all down, it appears we may have a civil war before any changes to our governance happen.
Give me a good, sound reason why it needs to be tweaked after 245 years, other than it helps W. Coast and the NE US.....totally at the expense of the rest of the country. Our founding fathers were brilliant and they NEVER wanted a low population state to be at a disadvantage of a high population State, while at the same time making each State's votes proportionate to its population. If it is good enough for the House and Senate, explain why it needs tweaked. If you tweak it, are you willing to give up Oklahoma having an equal right in the US Senate to California and New York?
Similar threads
