sycasey;842066791 said:

---

They keep saying that all the rich people are leaving California, but I'm still waiting to see it.

---

It's a myth, actually. Relative tax rates between states have very little to do with choice of residence, at least for individuals.

Companies who have high margins and rely on brain power, research and funding will always be drawn here-tech, biotech, etc.

Companies who manufacture commodities with low margins and are strictly regulated will do better elsewhere. Also if you manufacture in California you are subject to the new greenhouse gas regulations which will put you at a disadvantage vs competitors out of state or overseas

SmellinRoses;842067124 said:

---

Reading a lot of the posts in here - you'd think the state unemployment rate was two points lower than the national average not two points HIGHER...

Nothing to see here folks...move along!

---

...why aren't the unemployed moving to those States with all (?) those greener pastures that you subscribe to....

:hatters

Mvargus: I think your post clearly demonstrates what is wrong with conservatism today, and/or the Republican Party.

Only conservatives, particularly the leadership of the Tea Parry and such other elected officials such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, would view such agencies as the SEC, the FAA, or the FDIC as entities that are either not necessary or that no longer efficient.

Gone are the pragmatic days of Dwight Eisenhower, Bush 41 or even Ronald Reagan. This hatred of government has gotten so extreme that the result is a complete defeat in 2012 for modern conservative "values". Most now recognize that this Ayn Rand-ian view of government is too extreme and can only lead, in part, on the calamity that began in 2007.

It's clear that the modern conservative movement is only interested in the absolute devolution of the federal government and would do so at the risk of government stoppage, bond decline, and market collapse.

I realize that you have or maybe are not taking the position of eliminating these agencies (or maybe you are?), but it's very clear to me that agencies such as Dept. of Ed, EPA, or such agencies that regulate the market are marked for elimination by conservatives. They can talk a lot they want about reform but that is pure nonsense.

And just as an aside, I think your description of the entities listed, the reason for their creation, and their continued utility is inaccurate and certainly misleading. But we can have a wider debate on the usefulness of these governmental agencies or how modern conservatism has been hijacked.

OaktownBear;842067042 said:

---

Thankfully, this is one area where the libertarian view of the world is not accepted by the vast majority of people. Virtually any place you can build a dwelling is subject to some kind of natural disaster. I don't think that telling everyone in the South to leave because a hurricane is going to hit sooner or later is the wise move. Or everyone in the Northeast because they will get a major storm. Or everyone in California because inevitably there will be earthquakes or forest fires. Or everyone in the Northwest because, hell, sooner or later a volcano is going to blow. Or give up all our farm land because the rivers can flood.

Individuals and small communities simply cannot financially prepare for the level of loss that occurs in these situations, and frankly, its not good for the economy to make them. I'd say New Orleans is a good example. It serves an extremely valuable port and much of the country benefits from it. You can't just move it somewhere else and get the benefit from it.

As for building in a flood plain, etc., I agree that is stupid, but that is also what zoning laws are supposed to be for.

I'm very happy to pay some extra in taxes as essentially insurance that no one is going to come to me and say "well, idiot didn't you realize that about every 80 years or so there is a major eartquake on this fault and that on the off chance it hit your area your house would be destroyed. You should have bought hugely expensive insurance, or kept gobs of money in your bank account or better yet not lived in any major population center in California." I'll help with their hurricanes, tornadoes, Nor'Easters, or whatever if they help with my earthquakes. Good deal as far as I'm concerned.

---

Hear hear. The Libertarian attitude towards government assistance for natural disasters is, frankly, morally disgusting to me.

philly1121;842067180 said:

---

Mvargus: I think your post clearly demonstrates what is wrong with conservatism today, and/or the Republican Party.

Only conservatives, particularly the leadership of the Tea Parry and such other elected officials such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, would view such agencies as the SEC, the FAA, or the FDIC as entities that are either not necessary or that no longer efficient.

Gone are the pragmatic days of Dwight Eisenhower, Bush 41 or even Ronald Reagan. This hatred of government has gotten so extreme that the result is a complete defeat in 2012 for modern conservative "values". Most now recognize that this Ayn Rand-ian view of government is too extreme and can only lead, in part, on the calamity that began in 2007.

It's clear that the modern conservative movement is only interested in the absolute devolution of the federal government and would do so at the risk of government stoppage, bond decline, and market collapse.

I realize that you have or maybe are not taking the position of eliminating these agencies (or maybe you are?), but it's very clear to me that agencies such as Dept. of Ed, EPA, or such agencies that regulate the market are marked for elimination by conservatives. They can talk a lot they want about reform but that is pure nonsense.

And just as an aside, I think your description of the entities listed, the reason for their creation, and their continued utility is inaccurate and certainly misleading. But we can have a wider debate on the usefulness of these governmental agencies or how modern conservatism has been hijacked.

---

Republicans hold a 233 to 200 advantage in the House. They sent up a ham sandwich and lost a close presidential election. That is far from a complete defeat. Don't get me wrong, I believe the party is too far right. However, your understanding of how a large portion of America feels is completely off.

AU_Bears;842067117 said:

---

mvargus, your posts are rational and refreshing

---

And incorrect.

The simple tenet of the post mvargus was opposing is that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from government than do the poor. A fact he can nitpick for effect, but in totality remains patently true.

Wealth depends on commerce depends on society. You need roads, you need schools, you need laws.

Take the simple example of roads. To the extent they even use roads, the poor will use them for the cycle of their personal daily need as will the wealthy, but the wealthy must also depend on them for all the other components of their wealth creation. The wealthy not only needs to get herself to work, but also needs all of her employees to get to work. She also needs all of her suppliers to reach their destinations, and her customers as well. And the benefit is exponential as this can't work unless her customers too can get to work...

dyeager78;842067198 said:

---

Republicans hold a 233 to 200 advantage in the House. They sent up a ham sandwich and lost a close presidential election. That is far from a complete defeat. Don't get me wrong, I believe the party is too far right. However, your understanding of how a large portion of America feels is completely off.

---

They lost the overall popular vote in House elections. The only reason they still hold their majority is that they successfully gerrymandered their districts after the last election cycle.

drizzlybears brother;842067199 said:

---

And incorrect.

---

Agree to disagree

philly1121;842067180 said:

---

Mvargus: I think your post clearly demonstrates what is wrong with conservatism today, and/or the Republican Party.

Only conservatives, particularly the leadership of the Tea Parry and such other elected officials such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, would view such agencies as the SEC, the FAA, or the FDIC as entities that are either not necessary or that no longer efficient.

Gone are the pragmatic days of Dwight Eisenhower, Bush 41 or even Ronald Reagan. This hatred of government has gotten so extreme that the result is a complete defeat in 2012 for modern conservative "values". Most now recognize that this Ayn Rand-ian view of government is too extreme and can only lead, in part, on the calamity that began in 2007.

It's clear that the modern conservative movement is only interested in the absolute devolution of the federal government and would do so at the risk of government stoppage, bond decline, and market collapse.

I realize that you have or maybe are not taking the position of eliminating these agencies (or maybe you are?), but it's very clear to me that agencies such as Dept. of Ed, EPA, or such agencies that regulate the market are marked for elimination by conservatives. They can talk a lot they want about reform but that is pure nonsense.

And just as an aside, I think your description of the entities listed, the reason for their creation, and their continued utility is inaccurate and certainly misleading. But we can have a wider debate on the usefulness of these governmental agencies or how modern conservatism has been hijacked.

---

Philly, I have rarely seen someone so blatantly misinterpret something as you tried to do to my comments. I'd be offended if I haven't long ago realized that any discussion of political matters will never use logic and will always descend into hyperbole and abject cupidity.

If you actually read my comments I did not say that the SEC or FAA were useless. I did say that the benefits of these organizations was not solely concentrated towards the more wealthy Americans. But that was all I said.

Now I did say that the FDIC may be counter-productive because it discourages a level of prodence both in despositors and in the management of banks themselves. I did not say "we should get rid of it, its worthless."

I'll actually turn your arguement around a bit, because to me it displays the outright intellectual fraud that most liberals seem hapay to employ. All I said was that a case can be made that these programs might not have the exact benefits so many people claim they have. You immediately attacked me and claimed that somehow my simple questioning of the programs meant that I desired to destroy them and all the good they can do. It was a classic case of projection and rather amusing in its way.


But I probably shouldn't get too involved in the political flame wars here. Too many people do react with emotion and only emotion when these discussions come up. I almost always find myself on the outside not because I'm weathy (I live paycheck to paycheck) nor because I am some gluttonous selfish jerk (I spend quite a bit of time and money helping someone who is nothing more than a welfare queen and refuses to take a job and try to improve their life. If I was selfish why would I help them, they provide me nothing in return.) Yet, in part because of some of hte economics classes I took at UC Berkeley and then far too much time working where I saw the very laws and taxes pushed by the Democrats rebound to hurt people like I resulted in my turning away from anything the donkey party can ever propose. I hold the party in discain and have no faith that they can help anyone. Not that I like the Rethugicans any more. Long ago that party gave up what little humanity it had to try to suck money out of business and build an empire. In my mind both parties are populated by elitist kleptocrats and the best solution would be to drop every elected official in this country into a large vat of acid and start all over.

drizzlybears brother;842067199 said:

---

Take the simple example of roads. To the extent they even use roads, the poor will use them for the cycle of their personal daily need as will the wealthy, but the wealthy must also depend on them for all the other components of their wealth creation. The wealthy not only needs to get herself to work, but also needs all of her employees to get to work. She also needs all of her suppliers to reach their destinations, and her customers as well. And the benefit is exponential as this can't work unless her customers too can get to work...

---

Drizzly, I have a "thought-experiment" proposal for you since it can never happen.

LEt's set up a society with no roads.

I'll be that wealthy land/business owner you clearly despise.
You can be a poor worker forced to live in a land where there are absolutely no roads and everything is transported by horse or foot.

No, who is going to benefit more? The poor worker who can barely feed himself, owns no land and probably is forced to spend 14-16 hours a day desperately trying to obtain the goods he and his family needs to survive? (you).

Or would it be that wealthy man who has a new dwelling and thanks to his wealthy can afford to arrange for timely transport of goods via horse or sled despite the lack of roads? {me}

I think if you actually look over the history of the world you'd discover that there has always been a wealthy class, even in times before roads were common. However, the middle class only emerges in areas where good solid roads are built and maintained that allow goods to quickly move to where they are needed.

There is a strong economic reason that even today most of the population of the world lives within 20-30 miles of a navigable waterway. For a long time almost all commerce moved via the oceans because wagon/caravan was too slow. Roads opened up more land to everyone and helped the middle class thrive as they could now obtain goods they couldn't get before.

Sorry, but roads definitely are of a greater benefit to the middle class/poor than to the wealthy who have always had the means of obtaining goods quickly.

dyeager78;842067198 said:

---

Republicans hold a 233 to 200 advantage in the House. They sent up a ham sandwich and lost a close presidential election. That is far from a complete defeat. Don't get me wrong, I believe the party is too far right. However, your understanding of how a large portion of America feels is completely off.

---

a large portion of America voted for a ham sandwich in both the primaries and presidential election. think about that.

mvargus;842067214 said:

---

Philly, I have rarely seen someone so blatantly misinterpret something as you tried to do to my comments. I'd be offended if I haven't long ago realized that any discussion of political matters will never use logic and will always descend into hyperbole and abject cupidity.

If you actually read my comments I did not say that the SEC or FAA were useless. I did say that the benefits of these organizations was not solely concentrated towards the more wealthy Americans. But that was all I said.

Now I did say that the FDIC may be counter-productive because it discourages a level of prodence both in despositors and in the management of banks themselves. I did not say "we should get rid of it, its worthless."

I'll actually turn your arguement around a bit, because to me it displays the outright intellectual fraud that most liberals seem hapay to employ. All I said was that a case can be made that these programs might not have the exact benefits so many people claim they have. You immediately attacked me and claimed that somehow my simple questioning of the programs meant that I desired to destroy them and all the good they can do. It was a classic case of projection and rather amusing in its way.


But I probably shouldn't get too involved in the political flame wars here. Too many people do react with emotion and only emotion when these discussions come up. I almost always find myself on the outside not because I'm weathy (I live paycheck to paycheck) nor because I am some gluttonous selfish jerk (I spend quite a bit of time and money helping someone who is nothing more than a welfare queen and refuses to take a job and try to improve their life. If I was selfish why would I help them, they provide me nothing in return.) Yet, in part because of some of hte economics classes I took at UC Berkeley and then far too much time working where I saw the very laws and taxes pushed by the Democrats rebound to hurt people like I resulted in my turning away from anything the donkey party can ever propose. I hold the party in discain and have no faith that they can help anyone. Not that I like the Rethugicans any more. Long ago that party gave up what little humanity it had to try to suck money out of business and build an empire. In my mind both parties are populated by elitist kleptocrats and the best solution would be to drop every elected official in this country into a large vat of acid and start all over.

---

...will always descend into hyperbole...

Do you read what you write?

mvargus;842067222 said:

---

Drizzly, I have a "thought-experiment" proposal for you since it can never happen.

LEt's set up a society with no roads.

I'll be that wealthy land/business owner you clearly despise.
You can be a poor worker forced to live in a land where there are absolutely no roads and everything is transported by horse or foot.

No, who is going to benefit more? The poor worker who can barely feed himself, owns no land and probably is forced to spend 14-16 hours a day desperately trying to obtain the goods he and his family needs to survive? (you).

Or would it be that wealthy man who has a new dwelling and thanks to his wealthy can afford to arrange for timely transport of goods via horse or sled despite the lack of roads? {me}

I think if you actually look over the history of the world you'd discover that there has always been a wealthy class, even in times before roads were common. However, the middle class only emerges in areas where good solid roads are built and maintained that allow goods to quickly move to where they are needed.

There is a strong economic reason that even today most of the population of the world lives within 20-30 miles of a navigable waterway. For a long time almost all commerce moved via the oceans because wagon/caravan was too slow. Roads opened up more land to everyone and helped the middle class thrive as they could now obtain goods they couldn't get before.

Sorry, but roads definitely are of a greater benefit to the middle class/poor than to the wealthy who have always had the means of obtaining goods quickly.

---

the middle class didn't rise due to roads being built. I'm sure NYC would do ok without roads.

...are we still talking about CFB nested in golf and personal finance?
Just asking.
:beer:

LongTimeBearFan;842067160 said:

---

All I can say to that is 'don't let the door hit you in your (fat) ass on the way out'!
The dude is such a stuck up fraud that I don't care about him at all... two words sum up how the rest of the tour feels about him: FIG JAM! (Look it up).

---

...great golfer, much better than TW. A much better role model than that troubled Tiger personality. PM might want to consider parking his Escalade and purchasing an ORV for his wife and a dirt bike for himself---I'd suggest a Kawasaki KX450F or a big frickin' BMW K1600GTL. Get some bugs on your teeth, Phil.
:beer:

mvargus;842067222 said:

---

Drizzly, I have a "thought-experiment" proposal for you since it can never happen.

LEt's set up a society with no roads.

I'll be that wealthy land/business owner you clearly despise.
You can be a poor worker forced to live in a land where there are absolutely no roads and everything is transported by horse or foot.

No, who is going to benefit more? The poor worker who can barely feed himself, owns no land and probably is forced to spend 14-16 hours a day desperately trying to obtain the goods he and his family needs to survive? (you).

Or would it be that wealthy man who has a new dwelling and thanks to his wealthy can afford to arrange for timely transport of goods via horse or sled despite the lack of roads? {me}

I think if you actually look over the history of the world you'd discover that there has always been a wealthy class, even in times before roads were common. However, the middle class only emerges in areas where good solid roads are built and maintained that allow goods to quickly move to where they are needed.

There is a strong economic reason that even today most of the population of the world lives within 20-30 miles of a navigable waterway. For a long time almost all commerce moved via the oceans because wagon/caravan was too slow. Roads opened up more land to everyone and helped the middle class thrive as they could now obtain goods they couldn't get before.

Sorry, but roads definitely are of a greater benefit to the middle class/poor than to the wealthy who have always had the means of obtaining goods quickly.

---

Question for your thought experiment: how did the wealthy man in this scenario obtain his wealth?

You libs just never seem to "get it". Only when the wholesale exodus of big taxpayers eliminates your ability to fund all of your sacred social programs and government subsidies will the message finally hit home. By then it will be too late. Enjoy your utopia while it lasts, because the end is in slowly approaching.

Golden One;842067250 said:

---

You libs just never seem to "get it". Only when the wholesale exodus of big taxpayers eliminates your ability to fund all of your sacred social programs and government subsidies will the message finally hit home. By then it will be too late. Enjoy your utopia while it lasts, because the end is in slowly approaching.

---

You mean via offshore accounts in the caymans?

tommie317;842067021 said:

---

So they can pay less salary and rent, it doesn't always have to do with taxes

---

I'm afraid that taxes are a big part of the incentive to relocate. Obviously, the overall higher cost of living in California also plays a part from the standpoint of employees.

Golden One;842067252 said:

---

I'm afraid that taxes are a big part of the incentive to relocate. Obviously, the overall higher cost of living in California also plays a part from the standpoint of employees.

---

When I relocate my operations to china, which is a bigger impact, taxes or salary cost?

mvargus;842067222 said:

---

Drizzly, I have a "thought-experiment" proposal for you since it can never happen.

LEt's set up a society with no roads.

I'll be that wealthy land/business owner you clearly despise.
You can be a poor worker forced to live in a land where there are absolutely no roads and everything is transported by horse or foot.

No, who is going to benefit more? The poor worker who can barely feed himself, owns no land and probably is forced to spend 14-16 hours a day desperately trying to obtain the goods he and his family needs to survive? (you).

Or would it be that wealthy man who has a new dwelling and thanks to his wealthy can afford to arrange for timely transport of goods via horse or sled despite the lack of roads? {me}

I think if you actually look over the history of the world you'd discover that there has always been a wealthy class, even in times before roads were common. However, the middle class only emerges in areas where good solid roads are built and maintained that allow goods to quickly move to where they are needed.

There is a strong economic reason that even today most of the population of the world lives within 20-30 miles of a navigable waterway. For a long time almost all commerce moved via the oceans because wagon/caravan was too slow. Roads opened up more land to everyone and helped the middle class thrive as they could now obtain goods they couldn't get before.

Sorry, but roads definitely are of a greater benefit to the middle class/poor than to the wealthy who have always had the means of obtaining goods quickly.

---

My bad, I appear to have engaged the wrong person. I'll let your post stand on its own.

Although, I should point out you do yourself no favors by assuming people's wealth or status, or that in my case I somehow categorically despise the wealthy. You'd be surprised.

OaktownBear;842067050 said:

---

1. Salaries are A LOT higher in San Ramon v. Houston than $100K to $95K.

2. Living in California is market driven like anything else. If you tax less people will spend more on housing and other things and the cost of living will go up and that will drive salaries higher. Employers are not going to get a one to one reduction.

3. The major factors causing salaries to be high in places like California and New York are high cost of living and sky high housing prices. And the cost of living and housing is so high there because people with money want to live there. And high paying businesses go there anyway because that is where the skilled labor force is.

Lots of business and people have left California over the years. And lots of others have started/come.

---

Actually, you're wrong. Salaries for professional people are the same in Houston as they are in San Ramon. So, if you're an engineer working for Chevron and get a lateral transfer to Houston, your income will not change. Often these transfers come with a promotion so your income actually increases, giving you much more buying power in Houston. Same thing applies to blue collar workers who work for a major corporation. For example, if you're an operator or craftsman in a Contra Costa County refinery, you'll make exactly the same wage as your counterpart working in a refinery in Houston. When you consider that there is no income tax in Texas and that houses are about half the cost (or less) of those in California, your standard of living increases dramatically.

tommie317;842067253 said:

---

When I relocate my operations to china, which is a bigger impact, taxes or salary cost?

---

I was referring to domestic relocation. With respect to China, I don't have the facts. Obviously, wages are much lower there. I suspect that taxes are also.

tommie317;842067131 said:

---

Most jobs moving are low level, low salary jobs that the bulk of the workforce does not want.

---

You just don't get it. None of the 2,000 jobs Chevron is moving out of San Ramon to Houston, for example, are "low salary that the bulk of the workforce does not want". In fact they are largely highly-paid professional jobs that are very much in demand. Same applies to most of the jobs moved out of state by major corporations.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/phil_mickelson_regrets_whining_about_taxes/

He gets credit for this:

Quote:

---

“Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public,” Mickelson said in a statement released late Monday night. “I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend to not let it happen again.”

---

But man, Forbes reems him a new one:

Quote:

---

For starters, courtesy of President Obama’s re-election and the subsequent fiscal cliff negotiations, Mickelson will experience an increase in his top tax rate on ordinary income from 35% to 39.6%, and an increase in his top rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends from 15% to 20%. Clearly, when faced with tax hikes of that magnitude, it stops making economic sense for Mickelson to continue to swing a metal stick up to 70 times a day in exchange for the $48 million he earns on an annual basis.

But it gets worse. Thanks to the expiration of the temporary 2% reduction in the payroll tax rate on the first $113,700 of self-employment income, Mickelson will have to fork over an extra $2,274 in tax during 2013, an additional burden that makes it hard to justify briskly walking as many as five miles per day, four days a week. In long pants, nonetheless.

---

Yup, FIGJAM called a national presser about bolting California over $2,300 bucks and he makes $48 MILLION per year - FORTY EIGHT MILLION. (okay maybe it's more but seriously...Forbes is ripping him?)

What a freakin' douche.

Someone should punch ASU boy in the nuts and hit him over the head with a 1 iron.

mvargus;842067214 said:

---

Philly, I have rarely seen someone so blatantly misinterpret something as you tried to do to my comments. I'd be offended if I haven't long ago realized that any discussion of political matters will never use logic and will always descend into hyperbole and abject cupidity.

If you actually read my comments I did not say that the SEC or FAA were useless. I did say that the benefits of these organizations was not solely concentrated towards the more wealthy Americans. But that was all I said.

Now I did say that the FDIC may be counter-productive because it discourages a level of prodence both in despositors and in the management of banks themselves. I did not say "we should get rid of it, its worthless."

I'll actually turn your arguement around a bit, because to me it displays the outright intellectual fraud that most liberals seem hapay to employ. All I said was that a case can be made that these programs might not have the exact benefits so many people claim they have. You immediately attacked me and claimed that somehow my simple questioning of the programs meant that I desired to destroy them and all the good they can do. It was a classic case of projection and rather amusing in its way.


But I probably shouldn't get too involved in the political flame wars here. Too many people do react with emotion and only emotion when these discussions come up. I almost always find myself on the outside not because I'm weathy (I live paycheck to paycheck) nor because I am some gluttonous selfish jerk (I spend quite a bit of time and money helping someone who is nothing more than a welfare queen and refuses to take a job and try to improve their life. If I was selfish why would I help them, they provide me nothing in return.) Yet, in part because of some of hte economics classes I took at UC Berkeley and then far too much time working where I saw the very laws and taxes pushed by the Democrats rebound to hurt people like I resulted in my turning away from anything the donkey party can ever propose. I hold the party in discain and have no faith that they can help anyone. Not that I like the Rethugicans any more. Long ago that party gave up what little humanity it had to try to suck money out of business and build an empire. In my mind both parties are populated by elitist kleptocrats and the best solution would be to drop every elected official in this country into a large vat of acid and start all over.

---

Ok fair enough. If I misinterpreted your argument in terms of these agencies and their utility towards the wealthy or working class, I stand corrected. However, I still regard your fundamental argument and political mindset, as flawed, which has now been elucidated quite fully with your reply to me and such terms as "liberals as intellectual frauds".

What I was getting at was that these agencies are being targeted for elimination under the guise of "reform". All one needs to do is read Paul Ryan's budget, or listen to the intellectual captain of conservative orthodoxy Grover Norquist.

So you don't like the Dems or Reps. So I trust you are libertarian?

tommie317;842067237 said:

---

the middle class didn't rise due to roads being built. I'm sure NYC would do ok without roads.

---

Really? NYC could exist without roads at all.

So how would this wonderful city obtain all of hte food necessary to feed everyone crowded into the city? And how could they distribute it over the city?

Yes they can bring goods into the port, but once they are in the port they have to be moved from there, and goods also have to be moved from where they are made to a different port so they can be loaded onto the ship in the first place.

NYC became a major city because of its location at the mouth of the Hudson river and the creation of the Erie canal followed by the creation/extension of several railroads back in the 1800's. For a while it survived as a major industrial center connected to the Atlantic shipping lanes. It's location on the Hudson meant that cross-Atlantic traffic could be dropped off here for loading on barges that would carry it up the Hudson and then through the Erie canal to the Great Lakes. Most people forget that in 1776 New York was not as important as Philadelphia or Boston as those two cities actually housed higher populations and were considerably more wealthy. It wasn't until the canals made transshipment at New York inexpensive that the city grew into the economic powerhouse it remains to this day. (and for largely the same reason, its a major transshipment point for goods on the East Coast).

But its only a transit point for many goods now. NYC cannot and does not supply its own food or any raw materials. All of htat have to be brought in, and without the many roads in the city, it would be difficult to have built the high rises that now grace its skyline. Roads definitely improved the lot of all the people there.

SonOfCalVa;842066553 said:

---

marginal rates leave millions in his pocket each year
... baby phil is a loser no matter how much he makes and keeps
... crybaby boy can easily afford to buy the best bras at Victoria's Secret.

---

Why in the hell don't you just take 100% of his winnings while you're at it. Why stop at 63%? Screw him! The government knows best. Everyone knows that our political leaders are geniuses. :sarc:

oskihasahearton;842067247 said:

---

...great golfer, much better than TW. A much better role model than that troubled Tiger personality. PM might want to consider parking his Escalade and purchasing an ORV for his wife and a dirt bike for himself---I'd suggest a Kawasaki KX450F or a big frickin' BMW K1600GTL. Get some bugs on your teeth, Phil.
:beer:

---

If he starts doing stuff like that his doctors will have a cow. PM is taking unwarranted personal abuse. He is a good guy. That he wants to live elsewhere than I do does not make him a bad guy.

philly1121;842067265 said:

---

Ok fair enough. If I misinterpreted your argument in terms of these agencies and their utility towards the wealthy or working class, I stand corrected. However, I still regard your fundamental argument and political mindset, as flawed, which has now been elucidated quite fully with your reply to me and such terms as "liberals as intellectual frauds".

What I was getting at was that these agencies are being targeted for elimination under the guise of "reform". All one needs to do is read Paul Ryan's budget, or listen to the intellectual captain of conservative orthodoxy Grover Norquist.

So you don't like the Dems or Reps. So I trust you are libertarian?

---

The last libertarian I argued with wanted to privitize all government services including roads, military and even the justice system. And he was adamant that such a society would still be just and fair. He was less intellectually coherent than my pet rabbit.

In general I don't like government power when it becomes to concentated so I support smaller solutions and will argue against the seemingly endless excuses made to consolidate all power into the government. I don't think it will be just in the long run, and I find no one able and willing to show me an argument where the government can/will stop before it goes too far and destroys all freedoms.

I am registered as "decline to state." as a voter. I do vote in every election, but mostly to vote on the propositions. In general I just choose the 3rd party candidate with the most interesting name since I like neither main party and there is no political place for me at this time.

1979bear;842066563 said:

---

+1,000,000 beachybear

---

+1000001

mvargus;842067222 said:

---

Drizzly, I have a "thought-experiment" proposal for you since it can never happen.

LEt's set up a society with no roads.

I'll be that wealthy land/business owner you clearly despise.
You can be a poor worker forced to live in a land where there are absolutely no roads and everything is transported by horse or foot.

No, who is going to benefit more? The poor worker who can barely feed himself, owns no land and probably is forced to spend 14-16 hours a day desperately trying to obtain the goods he and his family needs to survive? (you).

Or would it be that wealthy man who has a new dwelling and thanks to his wealthy can afford to arrange for timely transport of goods via horse or sled despite the lack of roads? {me}

I think if you actually look over the history of the world you'd discover that there has always been a wealthy class, even in times before roads were common. However, the middle class only emerges in areas where good solid roads are built and maintained that allow goods to quickly move to where they are needed.

There is a strong economic reason that even today most of the population of the world lives within 20-30 miles of a navigable waterway. For a long time almost all commerce moved via the oceans because wagon/caravan was too slow. Roads opened up more land to everyone and helped the middle class thrive as they could now obtain goods they couldn't get before.

Sorry, but roads definitely are of a greater benefit to the middle class/poor than to the wealthy who have always had the means of obtaining goods quickly.

---

If you want to talk history, please be advised that historically the wealthy have almost always paid the lion's share of things like infrastructure and defense. Until the last 100+ years the wealthy knew that they had the most to lose if their country was defeated. They also knew that things like trade benefitted them much more than the poor peasant who was working the land. yes the poor could take advantage of the roads. But their wealth increased exponentially when there were good safe and secure trade routes, good transportation, new markets for their goods.
This applies to not just highways, but railroads, sea transport, air transport, and other forms of communications (pony express, mail, telegraph, telephone, internet).
[FYI: even writing began not to benefit the general public but to facilitate commerce. Which put a lot of money into the hands of the land owners, manufacturers and the middle men.]

Yes an poor person benefitted from these infrastructure improvements. But proportionally the wealthy individuals benefitted more (not just in purchasing items for personal use but for their business and properties and investments).

So why shouldn; the wealthy pay more.

dajo9;842066822 said:

---

This is why things have gotten so much more productive in Sacramento since Brown and a supermajority of democrats have been elected. The democrats have reformed and raised taxes and cut public union compensation / benefits. Both of which were necessary. A balanced budget is in sight and progress is being made in California, finally. Thankfully, the "my way or the highway" obstructionists have been relegated to a small little bench in the back of the room in Sacramento so that in the future as additional decisions are required, the grown ups can make them.

---

You are totally delusional, my friend.

mvargus;842067266 said:

---

Really? NYC could exist without roads at all.

---

I think he is referring to your fictional scenario in which no one has any roads. NYC would still be relatively prosperous even in that world.