POLL: Majority of Trump voters would support him even if he colluded with Russia

[Dittohead not!]

LOL, now there you go again posting misinformation and totally ignoring cost of living. Lowest number of minimum wage employees in the nation still doesn't resonate with you since your state leads the nation in poverty, homelessness, and has the worst quality of life in the nation. Keep retreading the same lies over and over again as again context never matters to a radical.

As for people leaving California, you are right, only the income earners thus taxpayers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/cal...ousing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

https://www.investors.com/politics/...oing-the-once-unthinkable-leaving-california/

Now run away and hide as usual only to come back on another thread posting leftwing lies

What is quite telling is how so many supporting California truly have no clue what is going on in their state as they live in their own little bubble. Who is going to pay for all those social programs with taxpayers leaving?

From your first link:

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data, "lower income Californians are the ones who are leaving, not higher income," said Christopher Thornberg, founding partner of research and consulting firm Beacon Economics in Los Angeles.

We have discussed this before.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You like politifact? Ever hear of the LA Times?

TRUE: California has the nation?s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living | PolitiFact California

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Stunning lack of understanding of what is going on in your state and being well indoctrinated by the radical left. what are you getting out of this?

Here, you actually have found a nugget of truth to support your position. It's too bad the rest of us have to sift through your links to find it, but here it is, from the first link:

Given robust job growth and the prosperity generated by several industries, it's worth asking why California has fallen behind, especially when the state's per-capita GDP increased approximately twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5%, compared with 6.27%).

Why indeed, isn't that creation of wealth sifting down to the poor? Is it a lack of liberal anti poverty programs? Is it a lack of compassion? No, quite the opposite:

California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and "other public welfare," according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation's welfare recipients.

So, why haven't all those dollars spent lifted people out of poverty?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.

The state and local bureaucracies that implement California's antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms.

Seems the answer to poverty is putting people to work. Who knew.

Conservative president Bill Clinton tried to impose workfare on the country, but it didn't work out. That's really too bad.

One thing California could do to actually help the poor would be to require either a full time job, or full time school for recipients. Now, there's a liberal program this progressive could get behind.

Or, maybe we could just wait until all those poor people left the state. Maybe they'll go to Texas, where housing is cheaper.

 

[Conservative]

Here, you actually have found a nugget of truth to support your position. It's too bad the rest of us have to sift through your links to find it, but here it is, from the first link:



Why indeed, isn't that creation of wealth sifting down to the poor? Is it a lack of liberal anti poverty programs? Is it a lack of compassion? No, quite the opposite:



So, why haven't all those dollars spent lifted people out of poverty?



Seems the answer to poverty is putting people to work. Who knew.

Conservative president Bill Clinton tried to impose workfare on the country, but it didn't work out. That's really too bad.

One thing California could do to actually help the poor would be to require either a full time job, or full time school for recipients. Now, there's a liberal program this progressive could get behind.

Or, maybe we could just wait until all those poor people left the state. Maybe they'll go to Texas, where housing is cheaper.

Those people would never come to TX because personal responsibility exists here and they would have to work or starve. The answer to poverty is a job and making people work. It was two Republican Governors from Wisconsin and Michigan that created the workfare program forcing capable welfare people to work or lose their benefits. That led to welfare reform signed by Clinton. Not sure what happened to that however my bet is California just refused to implement it, like they do with immigration law.

So you found a nugget of truth, seems like far too many have to be spoon fed and I refuse to do that although I do post spreadsheets to support my point of view only to be ignored. Seems no minds are ever changed in this forum and few are willing to admit they are wrong when they are wrong.

The social engineering in California is out of control as I call it thinking only with the heart. It really is hard watching people be homeless and in poverty but throwing money at the problem never works. In order for any change to occur there has to be incentive to change and that doesn't exist in California where all you do there is throw money at the problem which is going to be a more serious one if more taxpayers leave your state. The Ultra Rich will never make enough money or pay enough in taxes to fund the social programs there and the violation of various laws.

Good luck, you truly need that and a lot more

 

[Parrish]

Democracy is under attack. And 45 is surrendering to Russia with love, from our GOP Congress.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Those people would never come to TX because personal responsibility exists here and they would have to work or starve. The answer to poverty is a job and making people work. It was two Republican Governors from Wisconsin and Michigan that created the workfare program forcing capable welfare people to work or lose their benefits. That led to welfare reform signed by Clinton. Not sure what happened to that however my bet is California just refused to implement it, like they do with immigration law.

So you found a nugget of truth, seems like far too many have to be spoon fed and I refuse to do that although I do post spreadsheets to support my point of view only to be ignored. Seems no minds are ever changed in this forum and few are willing to admit they are wrong when they are wrong.

The social engineering in California is out of control as I call it thinking only with the heart. It really is hard watching people be homeless and in poverty but throwing money at the problem never works. In order for any change to occur there has to be incentive to change and that doesn't exist in California where all you do there is throw money at the problem which is going to be a more serious one if more taxpayers leave your state. The Ultra Rich will never make enough money or pay enough in taxes to fund the social programs there and the violation of various laws.

Good luck, you truly need that and a lot more

No, that would probably do it. It's really too bad that the workfare program instituted by the conservative president Clinton didn't continue. I'd really like to see it instituted in California, but it's unlikely.

You did notice that, according to one of the links you posted, most of the people leaving California are poor. The more well to do are staying.

 

[Conservative]

No, that would probably do it. It's really too bad that the workfare program instituted by the conservative president Clinton didn't continue. I'd really like to see it instituted in California, but it's unlikely.

You did notice that, according to one of the links you posted, most of the people leaving California are poor. The more well to do are staying.

Noticed you left out the word INCOME when talking about the poor leaving California, Income earners ARE TAXPAYERS!! Losing taxpayers is just what California needs

 

[Conservative]

Once again Con....you don't know what you are talking about. You probably should educate yourself before spouting off rhetoric...as there is something called research and people can check your bull ****. If you did, you wouldn't always look like such an old fool. California has a poverty rate of 16.4% with places it at 36th worst in the nation. Certainly not good by any means.....but guess which state has a poverty rate of 17.3% and comes in as 38th worst in the country........are you ready......now don't have a stroke.......yep......the armpit of the US....Texas.

One of your own explains it to you in Post 776, read it, comprehend it, and stop trying to blame others for reality

 

[disneydude]

You like politifact? Ever hear of the LA Times?

TRUE: California has the nation?s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living | PolitiFact California

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Stunning lack of understanding of what is going on in your state and being well indoctrinated by the radical left. what are you getting out of this?

LOL.....everything with you comes with spin and asterisks. Sorry Con.....The armpit you live in has a higher poverty rate than California...and ranks about the same in quality of life rankings. So as they say....before you comment on the sty in your neighbors eye....you might want to check out the beam in your own. :lamo

 

[disneydude]

One of your own explains it to you in Post 776, read it, comprehend it, and stop trying to blame others for reality

Once again.....you run and shuffle away from the facts. There are only 11 states in the Union that have move people living in poverty than Texas.....and unfortunately for you and your rhetoric....California isnt one of them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Noticed you left out the word INCOME when talking about the poor leaving California, Income earners ARE TAXPAYERS!! Losing taxpayers is just what California needs

Poor people in general have lower income (or INCOME) and pay less in taxes than rich people do.

I thought you knew that.

 

[Conservative]

LOL.....everything with you comes with spin and asterisks. Sorry Con.....The armpit you live in has a higher poverty rate than California...and ranks about the same in quality of life rankings. So as they say....before you comment on the sty in your neighbors eye....you might want to check out the beam in your own. :lamo

yep, more of your bs rhetoric totally ignoring that people from your state are moving here to the "armpit" of the country because obviously they aren't as refined and as smart as you appear as they just don't see the advantages of living in a blue state with the high cost of living, high regulations, highest poverty in the nation, most homelessness and illegals taking taxpayer money for their social services.

Before you start dictating to others suggest you solve your own state problems, biggest debt in the nation, poverty, homelessness, and illegals

 

[Conservative]

Once again.....you run and shuffle away from the facts. There are only 11 states in the Union that have move people living in poverty than Texas.....and unfortunately for you and your rhetoric....California isnt one of them.

Really? More people living in poverty? Post the data to support your claim, i posted mine and you ignored it

 

[Conservative]

Poor people in general have lower income (or INCOME) and pay less in taxes than rich people do.

I thought you knew that.

Poor income earners always pay sales taxes, excise taxes, and other state and local taxes as they continue to purchase products in the state simply to live

 

[Dittohead not!]

Poor income earners always pay sales taxes, excise taxes, and other state and local taxes as they continue to purchase products in the state simply to live

Nothing is inevitable but death and taxes.

But who pays the most in taxes, the poor or the well to do? According to your link, most of the people leaving California are the poor.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here's an interesting look at which states have the most real GDP growth per capita.

A couple of observations:

California is way ahead of Texas.

Blue states Massachusetts and New York head the list.

Red states Idaho and Mississippi are at the bottom.

How does that fit with your world view?

 

[Conservative]

Nothing is inevitable but death and taxes.

But who pays the most in taxes, the poor or the well to do? According to your link, most of the people leaving California are the poor.

In your state with the debt and problems you have, the legislature cannot afford to lose any tax revenue. Still they and the left cannot get it, the rich will never have enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Does it really matter who pays the most in taxes? Better collect something from everyone that works than promoting class warfare and envy demanding more from the rich

 

[Conservative]

Here's an interesting look at which states have the most real GDP growth per capita.

A couple of observations:

California is way ahead of Texas.

Blue states Massachusetts and New York head the list.

Red states Idaho and Mississippi are at the bottom.

How does that fit with your world view?

Interesting, in fact I know that I have seen those press clippings on the walls of those homeless shelters and tent cities all over California. Interesting how a large GDP that California has still hasn't resonated with the people fleeing the state or living in homeless shelters or mired in poverty paying for you high cost of living

 

[Dittohead not!]

In your state with the debt and problems you have, the legislature cannot afford to lose any tax revenue. Still they and the left cannot get it, the rich will never have enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Does it really matter who pays the most in taxes? Better collect something from everyone that works than promoting class warfare and envy demanding more from the rich

We're talking about tax revenue lost due to people leaving the state. The population is growing. The people leaving are the ones paying the least in taxes. If the rich are being over taxed, then they'd be the ones leaving.

The cost of living, due mostly to the cost of housing, which is dependent on supply and demand, is one big reason people leave.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Interesting, in fact I know that I have seen those press clippings on the walls of those homeless shelters and tent cities all over California. Interesting how a large GDP that California has still hasn't resonated with the people fleeing the state or living in homeless shelters or mired in poverty paying for you high cost of living

Dang, another bleeding heart liberal who would take the earnings of the wealthy to give to the poor in those "tent cities all over California."

Maybe Texas and Mississippi are doing a better job of distributing the wealth being generated. Is that what you're advocating Mr. Conservative, better redistribution of wealth?

 

[Conservative]

We're talking about tax revenue lost due to people leaving the state. The population is growing. The people leaving are the ones paying the least in taxes. If the rich are being over taxed, then they'd be the ones leaving.

The cost of living, due mostly to the cost of housing, which is dependent on supply and demand, is one big reason people leave.

Again, you don't seem to get it, your state cannot afford to lose taxpayers, that is reality. A growing population of illegals, homeless and more in poverty is quite an achievement, one not to be touted.

 

[Conservative]

Dang, another bleeding heart liberal who would take the earnings of the wealthy to give to the poor in those "tent cities all over California."

Maybe Texas and Mississippi are doing a better job of distributing the wealth being generated. Is that what you're advocating Mr. Conservative, better redistribution of wealth?

Maybe TX and Mississippi with their low cost of living give people a choice but of course the people fleeing your state are obviously too stupid to realize that they are leaving Utopia to the "armpit" of the nation with more job opportunities, no state income taxes, and true freedom of choice. Interesting how term limits in the state of TX don't change the color to blue

 

[Dittohead not!]

Again, you don't seem to get it, your state cannot afford to lose taxpayers, that is reality. A growing population of illegals, homeless and more in poverty is quite an achievement, one not to be touted.

It's OK. Texas can have those lower income people who pay little in taxes. We'll keep the higher income people who pay more in taxes. You're doing better at redistribution of income, therefore, the poor will be better off in the People's Republic of Texas.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Maybe TX and Mississippi with their low cost of living give people a choice but of course the people fleeing your state are obviously too stupid to realize that they are leaving Utopia to the "armpit" of the nation with more job opportunities, no state income taxes, and true freedom of choice. Interesting how term limits in the state of TX don't change the color to blue

Of course they aren't going to change to blue. Since they're doing so well at accommodating the poor, those red states are a utopia for them. Not only that, but they feel more at home where their neighbors are also poor.

 

[Conservative]

It's OK. Texas can have those lower income people who pay little in taxes. We'll keep the higher income people who pay more in taxes. You're doing better at redistribution of income, therefore, the poor will be better off in the People's Republic of Texas.

Those low income earners moving to TX don't make low incomes long as the opportunities here are greater than people like you are willing to admit. You want the higher income earners and believe they can fund the liberal spending appetite which of course is why you have the largest debt in the nation. The results of having that great economy and super rich don't seem to be resonating with those homeless, those below the poverty level, and of course continues to welcome illegals to your state. Better solve your own problems before trying to thrust your problems on the rest of the country

 

[Conservative]

Of course they aren't going to change to blue. Since they're doing so well at accommodating the poor, those red states are a utopia for them. Not only that, but they feel more at home where their neighbors are also poor.

Yep, freedom of opportunity and the low cost of living certainly is a problem as a lot of dumbasses moving to this state totally ignoring how TX screws people, has high pollution, no healthcare and low wages, Yep, a true nightmare!!