Let’s see, the quality of life, future expectations, and most other factors were better for the average middle class person back then. While other considerations like average education level, racial integration, and other factors have improved since. Seems like life should be better for the average middle class person yet that doesnt seem to be so. I guess it couldn’t possibly be that exploding social welfare spending is actually making things worse for the average middle class person not better, could it? Nope more social welfare spending is always better, just ask Greece eh?
Middle class is probably less off when compared to the ultra rich now vs then, but overall standard of living has risen across the board. Food's better, travel's better, we're safer, etc. Now yes, the middle class was sacrificed a bit to help the lower class (mostly to keep 'em from dying in the streets) but that's mostly because that's the only place the money could come from.
Now, a better question is, why the shit do the ultra wealthy get to slide by without paying back the society that made them ultra-rich?
So you're not only wrong on the policy but ignorant of the relevant history. Not surprising and probably why your only life ambition seems to be to find a rich person to pay for you to be able to live and not be a homeless person. Instead of learning how to be successful yourself and working to make it so, you just wallow in your ignorance and expect someone else better than you to care for you via social welfare spending. No wonder our country is falling behind China, it's full of people like you whose only ambition in life is to have a Hugo Chavez strongman lie to you and say your life is worth something and the only reason you're a failure is because of some rich person.
Let’s see, the quality of life, future expectations, and most other factors were better for the average middle class person back then. While other considerations like average education level, racial integration, and other factors have improved since. Seems like life should be better for the average middle class person yet that doesnt seem to be so. I guess it couldn’t possibly be that exploding social welfare spending is actually making things worse for the average middle class person not better, could it? Nope more social welfare spending is always better, just ask Greece eh?
For God's sake, everybody knows the real answer. The rich have increased their share at the expense of everybody else. This isn't even debatable anymore.
But by all means, keep punching down while those above you continue to rob you of more and more of your productive work.
For God's sake, everybody knows the real answer. The rich have increased their share at the expense of everybody else. This isn't even debatable anymore.
You mean, where would you get food from? Agriculture, most of which is exported, uses about 90% of the water in California. If California were just providing food for California we would have plenty of water for our citizens and our agriculture.Where would California get water from?
Cali needs no United States. USA wouldn't be the World's greatest without California. Truth hurts.California is a net payer to the federal treasury. They would have more money after seceding, not less.
Cali needs no United States. USA wouldn't be the World's greatest without California. Truth hurts.
You mean, where would you get food from? Agriculture, most of which is exported, uses about 90% of the water in California. If California were just providing food for California we would have plenty of water for our citizens and our agriculture.
The reason we import water is so farmers can supply the world with food grown on some of the richest farmland in the world.
You mean, where would you get food from? Agriculture, most of which is exported, uses about 90% of the water in California. If California were just providing food for California we would have plenty of water for our citizens and our agriculture.
The reason we import water is so farmers can supply the world with food grown on some of the richest farmland in the world.
California is where it is because of federal investment in ports, infrastructure and technology, largely driven by the Pacific theater during WW2 and the post-war boom of development. You’re welcome.Cali needs no United States. USA wouldn't be the World's greatest without California. Truth hurts.
California is where it is because of federal investment in ports, infrastructure and technology, largely driven by the Pacific theater during WW2 and the post-war boom of development. You’re welcome.
That’s because its a dishonest question. Look at where CA was circa pre-WW2. Then examine the population and infrastructure growth during and post WW2. Ports, factories, aerospace, technology investments, military bases, Naval stations, freeways...all of it attributed to rapid federally funded industrialization during WW2 and further leveraged after we sold our souls to China.I remember asking a long time ago for evidence that California had received disproportionate federal investment as compared to its size, population, and federal taxes over the years but that information has never shown up. I strongly suspect that’s because it’s not true.
That’s because its a dishonest question. Look at where CA was circa pre-WW2. Then examine the population and infrastructure growth during and post WW2. Ports, factories, aerospace, technology investments, military bases, Naval stations, freeways...all of it attributed to rapid federally funded industrialization during WW2 and further leveraged after we sold our souls to China.
Now, you can pretend none of that happened, or you can acknowledge that CA’s entire economic ecosystem is a blend of significant federal investment and geographic luck.
A wiser man than me once said...Of course it’s not a dishonest question, it’s a question you want to avoid because it destroys your point. If California has been the subject of disproportionate federal investment then show it. I bet you can’t. I bet I can find any number of states with far greater federal investment over the years that are far less successful.
That’s a ridiculous assertion that’s completely unjustifiable by the facts. Maybe, just maybe, Californians had something to do with California’s success and there are lessons to be had.
A wiser man than me once said...
Liberals are all about privilege checking. CA could stand to do a little itself.
https://youtu.be/NU5pXdRQn6UA wiser man than me once said...
Liberals are all about privilege checking. CA could stand to do a little itself.
This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town. Our political disagreements have become a powder keg, one that already would have blown if conservatives had liberals’ emotional instability.
Nobody is expected to cheer for this split. Cheering is not a normal reaction when couples get a divorce. We cheer for old married people on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.
But life is imperfect. Life is hard. We both now agree that living under the other side’s value system is wholly unacceptable. The most peaceful solution we Americans can hope for now is to go our separate ways. So let us come together one last time and agree on one thing: Irreconcilable differences.
Well Nostradumbass has spoken. I guess a split is inevitable.I see a split as a forgone conclusion. It will happen one of two ways. Through an amicable process or through the spillage of a lot of blood. This arguing of the minutiae of this state this, that state that, is kind of worthless at this point IMO because they do not factor into whether a split should be done. They borders of the two nations will be contiguous. That right there tells us roughly what states will lie within each of the two new nations.
The reason the split is inevitable I have already stated some time back. We have a large enough faction within the nation that is unable to accept the consequences of a national election. That's it in a nutshell. We have very many differences but that is the core reason. We have what is termed as irreconcilable differences.
We have many that want to continue to live under capitalism, which made this country the biggest success in the world, a nation where millions still seek to come. We have many that see that system as one of utter failure and seek a Socialist/Communist form of government. One faction wants limited government, one faction wants total control by government. There appears to be no means of reconciliation between the factions. Again, the decision to not accept the results of the election of 2016 says it all.
Nations have split and borders have moved many times before. We won't be blazing a new trail, just an arduous one. But it comes down to making it happen peacefully or making it happen through violent actions. The window of reconciliation has long since closed. Something is going to happen. Neither side is willing to lose. It couldn't be any clearer.
The link below is pretty much a superficial stating of the situation but does touch on some of the most polarizing of points. The author also diagrams his thinking on the boundaries of the two new nations.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/time-united-states-divorce-things-get-dangerous/
Do you agree with Obama’s assertion? I don’t need evidence to know and recognize that what he said is fundamentally true.Which is why we need to determine if such a thing is true or not. The first step is you providing evidence it is. You’ve refused.
That article won't be well received here because it criticizes the left and the left can do no wrong however the author boils the differences down enough so that even they can understand them.I see a split as a forgone conclusion. It will happen one of two ways. Through an amicable process or through the spillage of a lot of blood. This arguing of the minutiae of this state this, that state that, is kind of worthless at this point IMO because they do not factor into whether a split should be done. They borders of the two nations will be contiguous. That right there tells us roughly what states will lie within each of the two new nations.
The reason the split is inevitable I have already stated some time back. We have a large enough faction within the nation that is unable to accept the consequences of a national election. That's it in a nutshell. We have very many differences but that is the core reason. We have what is termed as irreconcilable differences.
We have many that want to continue to live under capitalism, which made this country the biggest success in the world, a nation where millions still seek to come. We have many that see that system as one of utter failure and seek a Socialist/Communist form of government. One faction wants limited government, one faction wants total control by government. There appears to be no means of reconciliation between the factions. Again, the decision to not accept the results of the election of 2016 says it all.
Nations have split and borders have moved many times before. We won't be blazing a new trail, just an arduous one. But it comes down to making it happen peacefully or making it happen through violent actions. The window of reconciliation has long since closed. Something is going to happen. Neither side is willing to lose. It couldn't be any clearer.
The link below is pretty much a superficial stating of the situation but does touch on some of the most polarizing of points. The author also diagrams his thinking on the boundaries of the two new nations.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/time-united-states-divorce-things-get-dangerous/
Do you agree with Obama’s assertion? I don’t need evidence to know and recognize that what he said is fundamentally true.