Conservative Policies vs. Pod Policies

[PoliticalChic]

After the war California was the magnet that drew citizens from all over the US. But now, not so much; people are leaving in droves, the kind of people you want to keep. Since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 million residents through this migration. The Manhattan Institute recently did a study on the exodus from California, where people coming into the state come from and where people leaving the state are going to. Here's a snippet from the executive summaery:

snippet:

The data show a pattern of movement over the past decade from California mainly to states in the western and southern U.S.: Texas, Nevada, and Arizona, in that order, are the top magnet states. Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah follow. Rounding out the top ten are two southern states: Georgia and South Carolina.

A finer-grained regional analysis reveals that the main current of migration out of California in the past decade has flowed eastward across the Colorado River, reversing the storied passages of the Dust Bowl era. Southern California had about 55 percent of the state’s population in 2000 but accounted for about 65 percent of the net out-migration in the decade that followed. More than 70 percent of the state’s net migration to Texas came from California’s south.

What has caused California’s transformation from a “pull in” to a “push out” state? The data have revealed several crucial drivers. One is chronic economic adversity (in most years, California unemployment is above the national average). Another is density: the Los Angeles and Orange County region now has a population density of 6,999.3 per square mile—well ahead of New York or Chicago. Dense coastal areas are a source of internal migration, as people seek more space in California’s interior, as well as migration to other states. A third factor is state and local governments’ constant fiscal instability, which sends at least two discouraging messages to businesses and individuals. One is that they cannot count on state and local governments to provide essential services—much less, tax breaks or other incentives. Second, chronically out-of-balance budgets can be seen as tax hikes waiting to happen.

The data also reveal the motives that drive individuals and businesses to leave California. One of these, of course, is work. States with low unemployment rates, such as Texas, are drawing people from California, whose rate is above the national average. Taxation also appears to be a factor, especially as it contributes to the business climate and, in turn, jobs. Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes. States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates. The data suggest that many cost drivers—taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costs—are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus.

Population change, along with the migration patterns that shape it, are important indicators of fiscal and political health. Migration choices reveal an important truth: some states understand how to get richer, while others seem to have lost the touch. California is a state in the latter group, but it can be put back on track. All it takes is the political will.

Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look

And Wiseacre, being another of the great con tools (great in his mind, so please don't let him know the truth) grabs a piece from another right wing bat shit crazy web site, and posts it as fact. Damn, there seems to be a pattern here among the con tools. They all seem to hate actual impartial study. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Brookings is hardly a right wing bat shot crazy website; of course, for a left wing bat shit crazy shitbird like you, everything that you don't agree with is from a right wing batshit crazy website. Second, I didn't post anything as fact, just a link to a study. An actual impartial study. Third, how about you post a link to an impartial study that supports your point of view. Until then, STFU.

Point of order!

Point of order!


Please allow this taxonomic correction, Wisey.....


He is not a 'bird' of any variety.

He is a slimy, mucous covered, detestable worm.
The loathsome Lumbricus.

 

[Wiseacre]

My mistake, it was the Manhattan Institute, not Brookings. Neither is a right wing bat shit crazy website.

Here's the deal Rshermr: you wanna talk about the issue at hand, fine. You wanna throw firebombs, I''m okay with that too. Sometimes. Sometimes you just ain't worth the trouble.

 

[Rshermr]

After the war California was the magnet that drew citizens from all over the US. But now, not so much; people are leaving in droves, the kind of people you want to keep. Since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 million residents through this migration. The Manhattan Institute recently did a study on the exodus from California, where people coming into the state come from and where people leaving the state are going to. Here's a snippet from the executive summaery:

snippet:

The data show a pattern of movement over the past decade from California mainly to states in the western and southern U.S.: Texas, Nevada, and Arizona, in that order, are the top magnet states. Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah follow. Rounding out the top ten are two southern states: Georgia and South Carolina.

A finer-grained regional analysis reveals that the main current of migration out of California in the past decade has flowed eastward across the Colorado River, reversing the storied passages of the Dust Bowl era. Southern California had about 55 percent of the state’s population in 2000 but accounted for about 65 percent of the net out-migration in the decade that followed. More than 70 percent of the state’s net migration to Texas came from California’s south.

What has caused California’s transformation from a “pull in” to a “push out” state? The data have revealed several crucial drivers. One is chronic economic adversity (in most years, California unemployment is above the national average). Another is density: the Los Angeles and Orange County region now has a population density of 6,999.3 per square mile—well ahead of New York or Chicago. Dense coastal areas are a source of internal migration, as people seek more space in California’s interior, as well as migration to other states. A third factor is state and local governments’ constant fiscal instability, which sends at least two discouraging messages to businesses and individuals. One is that they cannot count on state and local governments to provide essential services—much less, tax breaks or other incentives. Second, chronically out-of-balance budgets can be seen as tax hikes waiting to happen.

The data also reveal the motives that drive individuals and businesses to leave California. One of these, of course, is work. States with low unemployment rates, such as Texas, are drawing people from California, whose rate is above the national average. Taxation also appears to be a factor, especially as it contributes to the business climate and, in turn, jobs. Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes. States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates. The data suggest that many cost drivers—taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costs—are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus.

Population change, along with the migration patterns that shape it, are important indicators of fiscal and political health. Migration choices reveal an important truth: some states understand how to get richer, while others seem to have lost the touch. California is a state in the latter group, but it can be put back on track. All it takes is the political will.

Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look

And Wiseacre, being another of the great con tools (great in his mind, so please don't let him know the truth) grabs a piece from another right wing bat shit crazy web site, and posts it as fact. Damn, there seems to be a pattern here among the con tools. They all seem to hate actual impartial study. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Brookings is hardly a right wing bat shot crazy website; of course, for a left wing bat shit crazy shitbird like you, everything that you don't agree with is from a right wing batshit crazy website. Second, I didn't post anything as fact, just a link to a study. An actual impartial study. Third, how about you post a link to an impartial study that supports your point of view. Until then, STFU.

Brookings is hardly a right wing bat shot crazy website; of course, for a left wing bat shit crazy shitbird like you, everything that you don't agree with is from a right wing batshit crazy website. Second, I didn't post anything as fact, just a link to a study. An actual impartial study. Third, how about you post a link to an impartial study that supports your point of view. Until then, STFU.
First, you did not post a study from Brookings. I agree that Brookings is agood site, impartial as can be. But, you need to check your link. Because it goes to a different place, me boy. It goes to Manhattan Institute. Which is a different site. And which I know. So, who are they???
"The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director."
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research - SourceWatch

The Manhattan Institute is an increasingly prominent conservative think-tank that promotes limited government and free-market idealism.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research | Right Wing Watch
So much for number one. As to number two, I am sure that was your intent. You would never lie to us, would you, now Wise. I know that you always post right wing dogma just for us all to have access to, as a public service.
And number 3, I do use impartial links. And I don't try to suggest they are other than what they are.

 

[Rshermr]

And Wiseacre, being another of the great con tools (great in his mind, so please don't let him know the truth) grabs a piece from another right wing bat shit crazy web site, and posts it as fact. Damn, there seems to be a pattern here among the con tools. They all seem to hate actual impartial study. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Brookings is hardly a right wing bat shot crazy website; of course, for a left wing bat shit crazy shitbird like you, everything that you don't agree with is from a right wing batshit crazy website. Second, I didn't post anything as fact, just a link to a study. An actual impartial study. Third, how about you post a link to an impartial study that supports your point of view. Until then, STFU.

Point of order!

Point of order!


Please allow this taxonomic correction, Wisey.....


He is not a 'bird' of any variety.

He is a slimy, mucous covered, detestable worm.
The loathsome Lumbricus.

And, PC, you know how much I value your opinion. Juvenile as it may be. By the way, are you a she or a he. Never could quite figure that out. though it makes no real diff. Being a con tool, you never have to think. Or debate economic policy. Must be easy. Just take the latest con drivel, and post it.

 

[Rshermr]

My mistake, it was the Manhattan Institute, not Brookings. Neither is a right wing bat shit crazy website.

Here's the deal Rshermr: you wanna talk about the issue at hand, fine. You wanna throw firebombs, I''m okay with that too. Sometimes. Sometimes you just ain't worth the trouble.

One is never worth the effort if you use sites with an agenda. Because the first thing you have to do is understand the agenda and fact check everything. Which is a waste of time. Kind of like if I post a piece from move on. Which I would not do. If you do not understand that, and you can not use actual verifiable information, then I tend to get pissy. Just the way I am. If you want to converse, just don't provide crap as evidence.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Just take the latest con drivel, and post it.

when be so afraid to give us your best example of substantive con drivel. Why not admit you lack the IQ and character to do so, and so allow yourself to be reduced to violent personal attack?? What would your mother say about the way you behave here?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Brookings is hardly a right wing bat shot crazy website; of course, for a left wing bat shit crazy shitbird like you, everything that you don't agree with is from a right wing batshit crazy website. Second, I didn't post anything as fact, just a link to a study. An actual impartial study. Third, how about you post a link to an impartial study that supports your point of view. Until then, STFU.

Point of order!

Point of order!


Please allow this taxonomic correction, Wisey.....


He is not a 'bird' of any variety.

He is a slimy, mucous covered, detestable worm.
The loathsome Lumbricus.

And, PC, you know how much I value your opinion. Juvenile as it may be. By the way, are you a she or a he. Never could quite figure that out. though it makes no real diff. Being a con tool, you never have to think. Or debate economic policy. Must be easy. Just take the latest con drivel, and post it.

"...are you a she or a he...."


Now, see....a worm like you never has to deal with that query....being a hermaphrodite....

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. Polioticalchic pulls out another opinion piece from a right wing bat shit crazy con web site, and posts it as fact. Nothing new here. Just more of the same. And three more con tools join her. Group think at its best. Between the four, you have enough intelligence to equal that of the average human.

I love that old joke...
"What's worse than biting into an apple and finding Rshermr?
Biting into an apple and finding half a Rshermr."


Isn't it about time for you to go back to your first hobby, paraphilia?

Well, PC, you said progressives are stupid. And I gave you about 10 links to studies showing that cons always come out looking rather stupid when they are studied. And you, PC, are a perfect example. I kind of enjoy poking at you from time to time to see if you react like a retarded juvenile. And, you never disappoint. Funny how it is impossible to find studies that are impartial that show progressives to have less gray matter than your fraternity
So, what do they pay you for posting the dogma you post??.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

studies showing that cons always come out looking rather stupid when they are studied.

of course if Aristotle Jefferson and Friedman were stupid when studied the goof liberal would not be too scared silly to point out where. What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character. What would your mother say? Does she know you act like a school yard bully because you lack the IQ for more.

 

[Rshermr]

studies showing that cons always come out looking rather stupid when they are studied.

of course if Aristotle Jefferson and Friedman were stupid the goof liberal would not be too scared silly to point out where. What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character. What would your mother say??

Well, if she were alive, I suspect she would say something like "Is that poor ed mental?"
To which I would respond, YUP.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

studies showing that cons always come out looking rather stupid when they are studied.

. What would your mother say??

Well, if she were alive, I suspect she would say something like "Is that poor ed mental?"
To which I would respond, YUP.

of course if Aristotle Jefferson and Friedman were stupid the goof liberal would not be too scared silly to point out where. What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back onto the tracks, I don't think the 50+% of those who voted for Obama in this past election were voting policy at all. I think those who voted for Romney were voting policy.

I think those who voted Obama were voting to retain the benefits the Obama administration has provided to them or promised them. When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole. People look to their own self interests.

I have a friend with a manufacturing business that was based near the San Francisco bay area. He loved it there. But when California's regulation and tax policy reached sufficiently unacceptable proportions, he moved the business, lock, stock, and barrel just across the state line into Nevada. He was also looking to his own self interest.

And that is why people leave the aesthetically pleasing and beautiful California for less aesthetically pleasing and less beautiful parts of Texas. They look to their own self interests.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole.

yes liberalism is like a cancer on our souls!!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[Foxfyre]

When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole.

yes liberalism is like a cancer on our souls!!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

I even have a hard time thinking of it even as liberalism because their is nothing liberating or freedom producing in it. It requires giving over more and more power to an increasingly authoritarian government at all levels and trusting the 'king' to take care of us in whatever we need. By using Marxist concepts, it is returning us to the monarchal concept that the Founding Fathers risked everything they owned to free us from.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole.

yes liberalism is like a cancer on our souls!!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

I even have a hard time thinking of it even as liberalism because their is nothing liberating or freedom producing in it. It requires giving over more and more power to an increasingly authoritarian government at all levels and trusting the 'king' to take care of us in whatever we need. By using Marxist concepts, it is returning us to the monarchal concept that the Founding Fathers risked everything they owned to free us from.

Yes, to modern liberals welfare is freedom, to our Founders freedom was freedom from government no matter what rationale it used to consolidate power.

OF course welfare addiction is the best way to get the people to cooperate in the consolidation.

 

[Foxfyre]

yes liberalism is like a cancer on our souls!!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

I even have a hard time thinking of it even as liberalism because their is nothing liberating or freedom producing in it. It requires giving over more and more power to an increasingly authoritarian government at all levels and trusting the 'king' to take care of us in whatever we need. By using Marxist concepts, it is returning us to the monarchal concept that the Founding Fathers risked everything they owned to free us from.

Yes, to modern liberals welfare is freedom, to our Founders freedom was freedom from government no matter what rationale it used to consolidate power.

OF course welfare addiction is the best way to get the people to cooperate in the consolidation.

Yes. The Founding Fathers were truly liberal but not as it is currently defined in America. They embraced what we now call 'classical liberalism' that granted the federal government only such power as is absolutely necessary to secure our unalienable rights and allow the union of states to function as one nation. And the federal government was allowed only as much funding as was absolutely necessary to exercise those limited powers. The people would then be the first people in the history of the world to have unalienable rights recognized and protected by government so that they would know real freedom to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have, and live their lives as they chose to live them.

Modern day 'liberals' seem to think freedom is everybody thinking the same thoughts, speaking the same platitudes, and living exactly as everybody else. And ever since that kind of bondage embedded itself in the national psyche, we have been moving ever closer to total servitude to a government who may or may not choose to have our best interests at heart. And all it takes is the government to give or promise free 'stuff', and you have Obama re-elected.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a government who may or may not choose to have our best interests at heart.

it a difficult problem for conservatives. Jews and blacks who in theory have the most to fear from government love it the most. This is not true of all persecuted minorities but true of many. Perhaps it is a Stockholm like syndrome?

 

[Rshermr]

Okay, dragging the train back onto the tracks, I don't think the 50+% of those who voted for Obama in this past election were voting policy at all. I think those who voted for Romney were voting policy.

I think those who voted Obama were voting to retain the benefits the Obama administration has provided to them or promised them. When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole. People look to their own self interests.

I have a friend with a manufacturing business that was based near the San Francisco bay area. He loved it there. But when California's regulation and tax policy reached sufficiently unacceptable proportions, he moved the business, lock, stock, and barrel just across the state line into Nevada. He was also looking to his own self interest.

And that is why people leave the aesthetically pleasing and beautiful California for less aesthetically pleasing and less beautiful parts of Texas. They look to their own self interests.

And that is your opinion. So what??

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back onto the tracks, I don't think the 50+% of those who voted for Obama in this past election were voting policy at all. I think those who voted for Romney were voting policy.

I think those who voted Obama were voting to retain the benefits the Obama administration has provided to them or promised them. When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole. People look to their own self interests.

I have a friend with a manufacturing business that was based near the San Francisco bay area. He loved it there. But when California's regulation and tax policy reached sufficiently unacceptable proportions, he moved the business, lock, stock, and barrel just across the state line into Nevada. He was also looking to his own self interest.

And that is why people leave the aesthetically pleasing and beautiful California for less aesthetically pleasing and less beautiful parts of Texas. They look to their own self interests.

And that is your opinion. So what??

It is an informed opinion. Rebut it if you can. That is what debate is all about.

 

[Rshermr]

Okay, dragging the train back onto the tracks, I don't think the 50+% of those who voted for Obama in this past election were voting policy at all. I think those who voted for Romney were voting policy.

I think those who voted Obama were voting to retain the benefits the Obama administration has provided to them or promised them. When you have just over 50% of Americans receiving some or all of their income or other monetary benefit courtesy of the federal government, they simply don't have the courage to vote to give away that benefit even when they know it is damning and damaging to the country as a whole. People look to their own self interests.

I have a friend with a manufacturing business that was based near the San Francisco bay area. He loved it there. But when California's regulation and tax policy reached sufficiently unacceptable proportions, he moved the business, lock, stock, and barrel just across the state line into Nevada. He was also looking to his own self interest.

And that is why people leave the aesthetically pleasing and beautiful California for less aesthetically pleasing and less beautiful parts of Texas. They look to their own self interests.

And that is your opinion. So what??

It is an informed opinion. Rebut it if you can. That is what debate is all about.

rebut what. Your opinion?? But you know how much I respect your opinion. Why would I bother. You see, foxfire, you are but one of many who post their opinion, but have no evidence to support it. Your opinion, or mine, is of no value.
Spending your time making enemies of what you refer to as liberals, and giving those new enemies those attributes that you feel they have, is childish. Totally immaterial. Says that you need to get a life. If, on the other hand, you have evidence of same, from a source that is not there it mobilize you behind it, then put it out there.
Otherwise, you opinion is, as they say, like an asshole. Everyone has one. And you, on the other hand, look really stupid, because having laid it out there, you say it is informed. Like other opinions are not. Sorry, I find that completely self serving, and not the least impressive.