Jump to content

The Failure Of Republican Policies - Empirical Evidence.


Recommended Posts

Nevertheless, the Democrats argue that California is doing well. The question, however, is for whom? For some in the San Francisco Bay region and in the Los Angeles/Orange County area, it may well be. But overall, California ranks 46th worst in unemployment in the country at 8.5%, 45th in job creation, 50th as a business start-up climate and #1 in poverty. http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2014/01/21/the-divided-and-troubled-state-of-california/2/

California is $1.1 trillion in debt. along with horrible education standards included a 60% dropout rate in minority areas in the hollywood area. Add the horrible highway conditions, the releasing of some 180,000 felons because of a laxing of prison space for felons and you've got a Wonderful state in peril of splitting.

California is not $1.1 trillion in debt. Learn how to read the articles that you post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

3 words replaces all of that: Both parties suck...

And somehow that situation is systematically worse now than it was in 1960 because of a centuries long campaign of racism. You can't say you're "digging deep" when you chalk it all up to racism.

Politics- rich, powerful, snobby people telling the average person what's best for them.

From the article: All of the above problems hurt the California economy. So does the over $1.1 trillion in city, county and state debt or unfunded liabilities which keeps businesses away for fear of being a tax target. That too is the state of the state.

And even if that numbers is off, you have this wall.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-07-03/why-are-californias-businesses-disappearing

Much of the angst about California’s economy has been about jobs and whether employers are picking up stakes and heading for Texas. Bureau of Labor Statisticsdata compiled by Bloomberg News and published this week don’t answer the jobs question, but they do indicate that California is losing ground in a related category: the number of business establishments.

There were 1.3 million businesses in California at the end of 2012, 5.2 percent fewer than in the previous year (that’s about 73,000 fewer). To put that in perspective, Massachusetts lost 5,200 businesses, the second-highest amount, and Kansas had 3.1 percent fewer businesses in 2012 than in 2011, the second-highest loss rate. Nebraska added businesses at 11.9 percent, the fastest rate. Because BLS releases the data on a lag, the end of 2012 is the latest date for which numbers are available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article: All of the above problems hurt the California economy. So does the over $1.1 trillion in city, county and state debt or unfunded liabilities which keeps businesses away for fear of being a tax target. That too is the state of the state.

And even if that numbers is off, you have this wall.png

I don't think you understand what "debt" means. And again, California is enjoying a very large surplus in recent budget years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, all of your (mostly opinion and editorial) articles are several years old. Here is a more recent article about jobs in California:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20150307-story.html

Trout, I just responded to your opinion piece. Unfunded liabilities in CA are through the roof. Taxation IS pushing people out of Cali and there are succession talks stirring the debate. The handling of economics in CA are terrible and I love the state. Jerry Brown, environmentalist are killing California and frankly, Mr. Arnold did not do what he claimed he would do as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trout, I just responded to your opinion piece. Unfunded liabilities in CA are through the roof. Taxation IS pushing people out of Cali and there are succession talks stirring the debate. The handling of economics in CA are terrible and I love the state. Jerry Brown, environmentalist are killing California and frankly, Mr. Arnold did not do what he claimed he would do as well.

Except that the current budget situation and job growth over the past two years undermines your claims. I'm not saying that California is a model of great success. I'm saying that it cannot be compared in terms of budgetary and fiscal circumstances to states like Kansas, Wisconsin, or New Jersey. Two years ago, they were in terrible financial shape. But they're now running a surplus and are having decent enough jobs growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a cop out. That same mindset could be used to disregard any empirical evidence.

All of the scientific research shows climate change is real. "Oh, but we need more evidence because there could be these unspecified other things that could possibly maybe cause the same outcome and scientists haven't controlled for these things that I can't mention right now. So we don't have enough evidence to draw firm conclusions."

If you want to say other policies caused the outcome, then demonstrate it or at least name those other policies. Otherwise, you have speculation and I have the facts.

How can I prove a position that isn't committed to one answer or the other? Acknowledging that tax cuts alone doesn't increase revenue is all I can do at this point. Want me to go further will give me reason to and I'll look at it.

I'm not saying one way or the other on other policies (not sure why you aren't getting that), I'm saying I DON'T KNOW. I'm not speculating anything. You have the facts from an admittedly biased article that isn't telling all the facts...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Detroit and Baltimore are all the Empirical evidence YOU need. "Contrary to the emotional blackmail some leftists are attempting to peddle, Baltimore is not America’s problem or shame. That failed city is solely and completely a Democrat problem. Like many failed cities, Detroit comes to mind, and every city besieged recently by rioting, Democrats and their union pals have had carte blanche to inflict their ideas and policies on Baltimore since 1967, the last time there was a Republican Mayor.

In 2012, after four years of his own failed policies, President Obama won a whopping 87.4% of the Baltimore City vote. Democrats run the city of Baltimore, the unions, the schools, and, yes, the police force. Since 1969, there have only been only been two Republican governors of the State of Maryland.

Elijah Cummings has represented Baltimore in the U.S. Congress for more than thirty years. As I write this, despite his objectively disastrous reign, the Democrat-infested mainstream media is treating the Democrat like a local folk hero, not the obvious and glaring failure he really is.

Every single member of the Baltimore city council is a Democrat.

Liberalism and all the toxic government dependence and cronyism and union corruption and failed schools that comes along with it, has run amok in Baltimore for a half-century, and that is Baltimore’s problem. It is the free people of Baltimore who elect and then re-elect those who institute policies that have so spectacularly failed that once-great city. It is the free people of Baltimore who elected Mayor Room-To-Destroy."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Breitbart. So reliable.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-blue-city-model-1430263661

"You’re not supposed to say this in polite company, but what went up in flames in Baltimore Monday night was not merely a senior center, small businesses and police cars. Burning down was also the blue-city model of urban governance.

Nothing excuses the violence of rampaging students or the failure of city officials to stop it before Maryland’s Governor called in the National Guard. But as order starts to return to the streets, and the usual political suspects lament the lack of economic prospects for the young men who rioted, let’s not forget who has run Baltimore and Maryland for nearly all of the last 40 years.

The men and women in charge have been Democrats, and their governing ideas are “progressive.” This model, with its reliance on government and public unions, has dominated urban America as once-vibrant cities such as Baltimore became shells of their former selves. In 1960 Baltimore was America’s sixth largest city with 940,000 people. It has since shed nearly a third of its population and today isn’t in the top 25.

The dysfunctions of the blue-city model are many, but the main failures are three: high crime, low economic growth and failing public schools that serve primarily as jobs programs for teachers and administrators rather than places of learning........."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The writer is certainly entitled to their opinion, as are you.

Seems as though this thinking is NOT the minority. http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/sheriff-clarke-baltimore-failed-liberal-government-policies-rioters-do-not?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=b-sheriff-clarke

With $23 trillion spent on the welfare state over the last 50 years and trillions spent on public education, you'd think progress would have been made. The problem is liberalism and Govt. dumbing down our kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Detroit, the poorest city in the US.
wikipedia

The 2010 census released information on the poorest cities in the United States (with populations over 250,000) in September. A sad list for our country with so many Americans living below the poverty level.

Local economics play a part in this list but the political connection has also been made. Each of these cities has been controlled by Democrats for most of their existence.

What does this mean? The argument is Democrats tend to advocate for the poor, and yet, the programs they endorse keep their constituents from getting ahead.

Think about the direction our country is going and let’s advocate for change – stop government spending, control the debt, and help Americans get ahead.

In parenthesis is the last time a Republican mayor was elected.

1. Detroit, MI. 32.5% below poverty level. (1961)

2. Buffalo, NY. 29.9% below poverty level. (1954)

3. Cincinnati, OH. 27.8% below poverty level. (1984)

4. Cleveland, OH. 27.0% below poverty level. (1989)

5. Miami, FL. 26.9% below poverty level. Never.

6. St. Louis, MO. 26.8% below poverty level. (1949)

7. El Paso, TX. 26.4% below poverty level. Never.

8. Milwaukee, WI. 26.2% below poverty level. (1908)

9. Philadelphia, PA. 25.1% below poverty level. (1952)

10. Newark, NJ. 24.2% below poverty level. (1907).

In a study funded by the National Science Foundation, in every presidential election since 1952, the richer a voter is, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican, regardless of ethnicity, sex, education or age.

Why then, would Democrats want to keep their constituents from getting ahead? Because the poorer the voter, the more they tend to vote for Democrats. The more government programs available (extending unemployment, medicare, “free” health insurance, food stamps, etc.) the more people are dependent on the system. Let’s stop that cycle and get people to start depending on themselves. http://www.examiner.com/article/who-controls-the-ten-poorest-cities-the-us

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...