Democrat candidates for 2020

[F250 28886]

13 minutes ago, RayDog said:

He should be impeached now but republicans are doing nothing. So yes, both sides.

 

The Republicans are doing what is politically beneficial for them regarding Trump. Your plan would be the same thing so yeah that would qualify as both sides.

[Chrispy 132]

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Well, there are natural boundaries to CA cities, they do have perfect weather, and y'all do bus your homeless there. All of those things are true. Also true is that far more people want to live there than they have space for. Hell, nearly half of Austin is in Austin because they want to live in CA but can't afford it. They still "want" to live in CA, and that latent demand also keeps the housing prices up because everyone has an "I'd live in LA for that price" price.

And you believe those same homeless folks in CA would be housed, fed, and working in Texas?  Right.  Poverty is everywhere. Go check out the meth addled state just across your border.  The reason that poor people take the chance at going to a magnetic city like SF is that there is a "chance" to do something with themselves there.  

Take a look at the social ladder in your town. It ain't nearly as climbable. You focus on homeless people, the majority of which have a mental or substance problem. Instead, look at how immigrant latinos make it work in CA.  And they do make it work. The real problem for CA when it comes to the homeless is that they pretend to care. When you say youre going to take care of the homeless, more will come, and that draws in those who y'all don't already bus.   NYC has the same problem since they guarantee shelter beds. Meanwhile, your town pretty much tells them they can leave or die.  So they leave or die. Your solution to export poverty elsewhere isn't a better one. The actual solution for homelessness is to make it the responsibility of the state or municipality where the person had his last official residence or employment.  

Half of Austin wants to live in California? I’d like to see that poll, would be interesting. Ah, the poverty is everywhere platitude. One of the more unattractive human characteristics. Yes, we’re drowning in poverty, but look over there and stop focusing on us. I could bore you with the fact that poverty is based on a national standard and doesn’t account for the differences in living costs. Taxes, housing, and healthcare are wildly more expensive in California than Oklahoma, often rendering comparisons futile. But that’s a boring conversation, let’s get to the fun stuff. 

The reason homeless are flocking to California isn’t because they believe they’ll do something, it’s because they believe they’ll be given something. That’s the point of a welfare state. Another good hearted policy that’s gone horribly wrong. It’s mainly a giant safety net where addicts can shirk treatment and the mentally ill can ditch their medication, with no fear of being held accountable. It’s marketed as a utopia and it doesn’t take long for the disillusioned to realize its an inescapable dystopia.

I’m delighted you bring up Latinos, as the income inequality in California rivals that of Mexico. Actually, some studies say it’s worse, but that’s another discussion. You stated that population growth can not be sustained, it surely can’t have anything to do with California’s immigration policies right? They estimate that a quarter of California is made up of immigrants and they lost count of illegal aliens around 2.4 million at last check. Now, immigration is not inherently a bad thing, quite the opposite, but the policies in place regarding the border will continue to worsen conditions for the individuals that followed the law. As you know I’m sure, 55% of immigrant families receive a means tested benefits from the state, compared to 30% of the native population. Also, you know those piles of materials that you see scattered on the roadways and backstreets? That’s a tactic many blue collared immigrants in the construction business have adopted, simply to make ends meet. The insane climate regulations make disposing of it properly something they can ill afford. But, I suppose, that’s thriving in your eyes.

As to your last point, you pretend it’s some sort of revelation that politicians in that state are fraudulent. That was, if you remember, my main contention concerning the slimy Gavin Newsom. He doesn’t give the slightest shit for the homeless population, but yet he makes it part of his platform. He’s the worst of the worst and it deeply troubled me that people are willing to vote him into presidency. My idea for the homeless was not to ship them elsewhere or let them die. It was simply to change the current policies of the welfare state, lowering the tax rate, easing the burden of The California Environmental Quality Act, gain control of the border, and make affordable housing a priority. Instead, the morons are going to sink billions into a useless light rail. They don’t want solutions, they want Californians to keep paying through the nose and to garner as many voters as possible. In the meantime, California will continue to sink into the mire of its own creation. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

Half of Austin wants to live in California? I’d like to see that poll, would be interesting. Ah, the poverty is everywhere platitude. One of the more unattractive human characteristics. Yes, we’re drowning in poverty, but look over there and stop focusing on us. I could bore you with the fact that poverty is based on a national standard and doesn’t account for the differences in living costs. Taxes, housing, and healthcare are wildly more expensive in California than Oklahoma, often rendering comparisons futile. But that’s a boring conversation, let’s get to the fun stuff. 

The reason homeless are flocking to California isn’t because they believe they’ll do something, it’s because they believe they’ll be given something. That’s the point of a welfare state. Another good hearted policy that’s gone horribly wrong. It’s mainly a giant safety net where addicts can shirk treatment and the mentally ill can ditch their medication, with no fear of being held accountable. It’s marketed as a utopia and it doesn’t take long for the disillusioned to realize its an inescapable dystopia.

I’m delighted you bring up Latinos, as the income inequality in California rivals that of Mexico. Actually, some studies say it’s worse, but that’s another discussion. You stated that population growth can not be sustained, it surely can’t have anything to do with California’s immigration policies right? They estimate that a quarter of California is made up of immigrants and they lost count of illegal aliens around 2.4 million at last check. Now, immigration is not inherently a bad thing, quite the opposite, but the policies in place regarding the border will continue to worsen conditions for the individuals that followed the law. As you know I’m sure, 55% of immigrant families receive a means tested benefits from the state, compared to 30% of the native population. Also, you know those piles of materials that you see scattered on the roadways and backstreets? That’s a tactic many blue collared immigrants in the construction business have adopted, simply to make ends meet. The insane climate regulations make disposing of it properly something they can ill afford. But, I suppose, that’s thriving in your eyes.

As to your last point, you pretend it’s some sort of revelation that politicians in that state are fraudulent. That was, if you remember, my main contention concerning the slimy Gavin Newsom. He doesn’t give the slightest shit for the homeless population, but yet he makes it part of his platform. He’s the worst of the worst and it deeply troubled me that people are willing to vote him into presidency. My idea for the homeless was not to ship them elsewhere or let them die. It was simply to change the current policies of the welfare state, lowering the tax rate, easing the burden of The California Environmental Quality Act, gain control of the border, and make affordable housing a priority. Instead, the morons are going to sink billions into a useless light rail. They don’t want solutions, they want Californians to keep paying through the nose and to garner as many voters as possible. In the meantime, California will continue to sink into the mire of its own creation. 

Ahh, the old "affordable housing a priority" mantra. For a guy that hates Newsome, you sure sound like him.  So when you start tearing down market rate housing and replacing it with affordable housing, what do you think that will do to the prices of remaining (and dwindling due to your policy) market rate housing?  I will give you a hint. It goes up further. Furthermore, you've also opened the doors for the rest of the country to come camp out in your streets and enter the lottery for your affordable housing projects. Remember, you claim to not be "leave or die," but Texas is. So even more people are going to show up to try to occupy your affordable housing. 

 

There's really only one way to make market rate housing affordable in mature fully built cities. Increase crime. Nobody is going to do that on purpose though.  The problem is that CA isn't in a "mire of its own creation."  Its actually a victim of its own success. Some people are going to get churned by the market. Sounds like you're one of them. I know you'd like to blame taxes and welfare for the fact that a 1000 sf 60 year old run-down home in a historically lower middle class area is going for a million dollars, but its actually going for a million dollars because someone is offering a million dollars for it. 

 

But hey, if you think OK and CA are equivalent in offering you opportunity then move to OK.  Lol that you think the poverty problem is worse in CA. Sorry you got priced out of CA.  Maybe try Fresno. Its affordable still. 

 

I do agree on one thing. With our freedom of movement, states can't have good welfare policies while states who hate their own poor citizens like OK exist. Your affordable housing plan needs to be available to long time CA residents only which is nearly impossible with our constitution. CA needs states like OK to take care of their own. Or we need a national plan. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Chrispy 132]

57 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Ahh, the old "affordable housing a priority" mantra. For a guy that hates Newsome, you sure sound like him.  So when you start tearing down market rate housing and replacing it with affordable housing, what do you think that will do to the prices of remaining (and dwindling due to your policy) market rate housing?  I will give you a hint. It goes up further. Furthermore, you've also opened the doors for the rest of the country to come camp out in your streets and enter the lottery for your affordable housing projects. Remember, you claim to not be "leave or die," but Texas is. So even more people are going to show up to try to occupy your affordable housing. 

 

There's really only one way to make market rate housing affordable in mature fully built cities. Increase crime. Nobody is going to do that on purpose though.  The problem is that CA isn't in a "mire of its own creation."  Its actually a victim of its own success. Some people are going to get churned by the market. Sounds like you're one of them. I know you'd like to blame taxes and welfare for the fact that a 1000 sf 60 year old run-down home in a historically lower middle class area is going for a million dollars, but its actually going for a million dollars because someone is offering a million dollars for it. 

 

But hey, if you think OK and CA are equivalent in offering you opportunity then move to OK.  Lol that you think the poverty problem is worse in CA. Sorry you got priced out of CA.  Maybe try Fresno. Its affordable still. 

 

I do agree on one thing. With our freedom of movement, states can't have good welfare policies while states who hate their own poor citizens like OK exist. Your affordable housing plan needs to be available to long time CA residents only which is nearly impossible with our constitution. CA needs states like OK to take care of their own. Or we need a national plan. 

There’s a key difference between Newsom and myself, I believe what I say. I’m not sure where I implied tearing down market rate housing. This concept is fairly simple, but for some it remains just outside of their grasp. The material, labor, and government fees are higher in California than anywhere else in the country and regulations tie up these development programs for years, adding even more to the cost. In Texas, for example, it can take around a year and a half from concept to permit, whereas the process is around five years in California. That is, if you’re lucky enough to not get hit with the thousands of frivolous environmental lawsuits that are aimed to halt building developments. Speeding up housing developments surely wouldn’t ease the problem would it? But, you say, we simply don’t have the room. Well, then you would think that since land is at such a premium, that Californian’s would be trying their damdest to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Of course they’re not, and they’re not going to. That would be flat out too mean and would lessen their pool of victims to sink their welfare claws into, also diminishing their voter pool. So the population will keep rising and the housing will still be slow due to the unreasonable land use restrictions. Thus, the mire, and yes it is a mire, will only deepen. 

You can’t possibly be concerned the doors to California will be any more open than they already are. The billions spent in cash assistance payments, vendor payments, and various welfare programs have made sure the message is heard loud and clear throughout the country. 1 out of every 3 Americans on welfare reside in California, I’m fairly positive the word is out. But sure, Californian’s are spending 30% of their income on housing, 40% higher for energy, and getting priced out of their homes simply because their state is so successful. 

My point on Oklahoma was, of course, that comparing states is often fruitless. I’m not sure why you keep throwing Oklahoma out as an example when we’re discussing California. It’s a strange misdirection tactic to be sure. 

I’m glad that you didn’t reiterate how great the average Latino family is doing, as all of the data suggests otherwise. That was almost as insane and suggesting that only crime will make market rate housing affordable. As for the personal attacks on my personal success, assume what you will. I would spend less time focusing on me and more on the homeless man about to take a dump on your front lawn. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

42 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

There’s a key difference between Newsom and myself, I believe what I say. I’m not sure where I implied tearing down market rate housing. This concept is fairly simple, but for some it remains just outside of their grasp. The material, labor, and government fees are higher in California than anywhere else in the country and regulations tie up these development programs for years, adding even more to the cost. In Texas, for example, it can take around a year and a half from concept to permit, whereas the process is around five years in California. That is, if you’re lucky enough to not get hit with the thousands of frivolous environmental lawsuits that are aimed to halt building developments. Speeding up housing developments surely wouldn’t ease the problem would it? But, you say, we simply don’t have the room. Well, then you would think that since land is at such a premium, that Californian’s would be trying their damdest to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Of course they’re not, and they’re not going to. That would be flat out too mean and would lessen their pool of victims to sink their welfare claws into, also diminishing their voter pool. So the population will keep rising and the housing will still be slow due to the unreasonable land use restrictions. Thus, the mire, and yes it is a mire, will only deepen. 

Where are you going to put this affordable housing in SF if you aren't going to tear down market rate housing? Are you going to tear down industrial or commercial use buildings instead?  Even if you do so, how are you going to artificially depress the land value so that you can sell or rent units at less than market rate without it being "welfare"?  And again, even if you, instead, magically find non-existent greenfield for your projects, they will be open to residents of other US states who will move to CA to live in them because their home states don't offer jack shit.  And its pretty laughable that while you attempt to demonize welfare, your affordable housing plan is welfare on steroids.  

 

"You can’t possibly be concerned the doors to California will be any more open than they already are. The billions spent in cash assistance payments, vendor payments, and various welfare programs have made sure the message is heard loud and clear throughout the country. 1 out of every 3 Americans on welfare reside in California, I’m fairly positive the word is out. But sure, Californian’s are spending 30% of their income on housing, 40% higher for energy, and getting priced out of their homes simply because their state is so successful."

Again, they spend 30% of their income because they and many other people want to live where they're living.  The state is successful.  They can also go live in Fresno in CA if they want to and spend less, but have just about the same opportunity for income as they would have in flyover country.  People want to live near job centers and that's why it costs more to live near job centers.  And again, you keep saying shit like the "word is out" on CA and then you say you're going to fix it by building welfare housing for all-comers.  How are you going to keep the "word from coming out" when you do that?  The problem for CA isn't illegal immigrants who are ineligible for CA welfare programs.  Its internal migration from other states who are eligible for all benefits.  And CA wants that wall to keep other Americans out if the rest of America isn't going to start giving a shit about their own residents.

"My point on Oklahoma was, of course, that comparing states is often fruitless. I’m not sure why you keep throwing Oklahoma out as an example when we’re discussing California. It’s a strange misdirection tactic to be sure. "

Its fruitless because nobody wants to live in OK because there is no opportunity and more poverty, and OK is disinterested in doing anything about either one.

"I’m glad that you didn’t reiterate how great the average Latino family is doing, as all of the data suggests otherwise. That was almost as insane and suggesting that only crime will make market rate housing affordable. As for the personal attacks on my personal success, assume what you will. I would spend less time focusing on me and more on the homeless man about to take a dump on your front lawn. "

They make it work and they do so in CA because thats where they have more opportunity.  They could go be poor in OK or Iowa.  They don't because their kids won't have a chance to be anything in OK or Iowa.  And yes, only an increase in crime will change the market rate for housing in markets that are completely developed.  Its impossible to increase supply by a big enough amount to make a difference, so you have to tackle demand.  High crime does that.

My lawn is just fine.  I'm in NYC which guarantees shelter rooms to homeless, and it gets its own share of busing from careless communities as well.  Is it NYC's fault that homeless come here for shelter or is it your town's fault for kicking its residents to more caring locales?  Incidentally, NYC has added 500,000 people since the 2010 census.  Do you really believe that those 500,000 are the only ones who want to move to NYC, or do you understand that they are the ones willing to pay the highest price to live in available units?  Are you aware that NYC had and has 0 greenfield development opportunities and has been developing on contaminated brownfield sites which require lengthy and expensive environmental cleanup?  The same issue arises in SF and you think it should be expedited?  Its fucking easy in Texas because you're just making a subdivision in a cow pasture, and not cleaning up a radium dump first.  Personally, like you, I think something needs to be done to keep middle class and lower class people present in mature cities.  I just understand that the only way to do that without being a magnet is to restrict it only to those who were already present, but priced out.

 

Incidentally, the same issues will crop up in Texas cities eventually.  Even though there is open land 100 miles from Houston, at some point the distance to the core is going to be too great, and you are already seeing the core of cities becoming too expensive for lower and middle classes.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

How do you split quotes on the new board?

[RDCanecutter 26517]

Quote

How do you split

Old school attempt #1

Quote

quotes on the new board?

^^I did that by cutting and pasting text, and sticking

tags in it.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by RDCanecutter

[Chrispy 132]

28 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Where are you going to put this affordable housing in SF if you aren't going to tear down market rate housing? Are you going to tear down industrial or commercial use buildings instead?  Even if you do so, how are you going to artificially depress the land value so that you can sell or rent units at less than market rate without it being "welfare"?  And again, even if you, instead, magically find non-existent greenfield for your projects, they will be open to residents of other US states who will move to CA to live in them because their home states don't offer jack shit.  And its pretty laughable that while you attempt to demonize welfare, your affordable housing plan is welfare on steroids.  

 

"You can’t possibly be concerned the doors to California will be any more open than they already are. The billions spent in cash assistance payments, vendor payments, and various welfare programs have made sure the message is heard loud and clear throughout the country. 1 out of every 3 Americans on welfare reside in California, I’m fairly positive the word is out. But sure, Californian’s are spending 30% of their income on housing, 40% higher for energy, and getting priced out of their homes simply because their state is so successful."

Again, they spend 30% of their income because they and many other people want to live where they're living.  The state is successful.  They can also go live in Fresno in CA if they want to and spend less, but have just about the same opportunity for income as they would have in flyover country.  People want to live near job centers and that's why it costs more to live near job centers.  And again, you keep saying shit like the "word is out" on CA and then you say you're going to fix it by building welfare housing for all-comers.  How are you going to keep the "word from coming out" when you do that?  The problem for CA isn't illegal immigrants who are ineligible for CA welfare programs.  Its internal migration from other states who are eligible for all benefits.  And CA wants that wall to keep other Americans out if the rest of America isn't going to start giving a shit about their own residents.

"My point on Oklahoma was, of course, that comparing states is often fruitless. I’m not sure why you keep throwing Oklahoma out as an example when we’re discussing California. It’s a strange misdirection tactic to be sure. "

Its fruitless because nobody wants to live in OK because there is no opportunity and more poverty, and OK is disinterested in doing anything about either one.

"I’m glad that you didn’t reiterate how great the average Latino family is doing, as all of the data suggests otherwise. That was almost as insane and suggesting that only crime will make market rate housing affordable. As for the personal attacks on my personal success, assume what you will. I would spend less time focusing on me and more on the homeless man about to take a dump on your front lawn. "

They make it work and they do so in CA because thats where they have more opportunity.  They could go be poor in OK or Iowa.  They don't because their kids won't have a chance to be anything in OK or Iowa.  And yes, only an increase in crime will change the market rate for housing in markets that are completely developed.  Its impossible to increase supply by a big enough amount to make a difference, so you have to tackle demand.  High crime does that.

My lawn is just fine.  I'm in NYC which guarantees shelter rooms to homeless, and it gets its own share of busing from careless communities as well.  Is it NYC's fault that homeless come here for shelter or is it your town's fault for kicking its residents to more caring locales?  Incidentally, NYC has added 500,000 people since the 2010 census.  Do you really believe that those 500,000 are the only ones who want to move to NYC, or do you understand that they are the ones willing to pay the highest price to live in available units?  Are you aware that NYC had and has 0 greenfield development opportunities and has been developing on contaminated brownfield sites which require lengthy and expensive environmental cleanup?  The same issue arises in SF and you think it should be expedited?  Its fucking easy in Texas because you're just making a subdivision in a cow pasture, and not cleaning up a radium dump first.  Personally, like you, I think something needs to be done to keep middle class and lower class people present in mature cities.  I just understand that the only way to do that without being a magnet is to restrict it only to those who were already present, but priced out.

 

Incidentally, the same issues will crop up in Texas cities eventually.  Even though there is open land 100 miles from Houston, at some point the distance to the core is going to be too great, and you are already seeing the core of cities becoming too expensive for lower and middle classes.

 

 

A little strange you’re restricting the entirety of California’s housing crisis to SF, I must admit. You do realize that there are housing developments that aren’t welfare, correct? I’m not advocating for any type of welfare program. Lowering the taxes, closing the border, and deregulation will help across the board, especially the middle class, who are slowly disappearing. The point is to stop them from getting priced out of their current home and not end up on the already crowded streets. This problem has been building for years and they just stared at the tsunami as it washed up on their shores.

Silly me, I forget that California is the only state that cares for its residents. These big, bad other states need to fix the problem for them. You’re heart is bleeding so badly, you may need to go see your cardiologist. 

You still don’t understand what I was explaining about your random insertion of Oklahoma, but I’ll find a way to move on. 

So now the Latino’s are poor? My my, you sure have changed your tune on that point. I’ll tell you what, I’ll stick to my plan and you go empty all the prisons in California into these crowded cities and we’ll see how well your theory turns out. 

NYC huh? Mandatory insertion of an irrelevant state that has nothing to do with California. I mean, what state is next? Oh that’s right, Texas. First Texas doesn’t care about its citizens and now it’s next in line to be like California. It’s getting hard to follow your meandering psychobabble. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

33 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

A little strange you’re restricting the entirety of California’s housing crisis to SF, I must admit. You do realize that there are housing developments that aren’t welfare, correct? I’m not advocating for any type of welfare program. Lowering the taxes, closing the border, and deregulation will help across the board, especially the middle class, who are slowly disappearing. The point is to stop them from getting priced out of their current home and not end up on the already crowded streets. This problem has been building for years and they just stared at the tsunami as it washed up on their shores.

They have a housing crisis in LA too.  Housing is cheap in Fresno.  Middle class folks in the bay area and LA can go buy a home there now.  Why aren't they?  The median home price in Fresno is over 100k less than the median home price in Houston.  The housing "crisis" in Fresno and similarly located towns is quite the opposite as mortgages remain underwater from the housing crash.  And again, LA and SF are mature cities without greenfield and surrounded by natural barriers.

And any housing development that artificially suppresses cost and rations housing so that it can be "affordable" is welfare.  It doesn't matter whether they limit access via maximum income or lottery, its welfare.  The middle class is getting priced out because wealthier people are willing to pay more.  This is the market at work.  If you want more welfare, fine, but understand that what you're calling for is more welfare and regulation, not less.  If 8 million people want to live in SF, and there is only room for 800,000, the richest 800,000 are going to be taking the housing units if you let the market do its work.

Quote

"Silly me, I forget that California is the only state that cares for its residents. These big, bad other states need to fix the problem for them. You’re heart is bleeding so badly, you may need to go see your cardiologist. "

Yes, multiple times now you've said CA's welfare programs are the problem.  Remember you said this,

Quote

"The reason homeless are flocking to California isn’t because they believe they’ll do something, it’s because they believe they’ll be given something. That’s the point of a welfare state. "

What do you think that means?  It means other states don't fucking care enough so their poor people are moving to CA.

Quote

"You still don’t understand what I was explaining about your random insertion of Oklahoma, but I’ll find a way to move on. "

OK matters because CA doesn't exist in a vacuum, but you can use pretty much any red state as a fill-in for OK.  They don't care so their residents move to CA to be "given" something.

Quote

"So now the Latino’s are poor? My my, you sure have changed your tune on that point. I’ll tell you what, I’ll stick to my plan and you go empty all the prisons in California into these crowded cities and we’ll see how well your theory turns out. "

If you empty the prisons, people will leave CA and housing prices will plummet.  I'm not advocating for emptying prisons though. I simply understand that demand is the primary factor driving up cost, not supply.  You have no plan but implementing more welfare.

Quote

"NYC huh? Mandatory insertion of an irrelevant state that has nothing to do with California. I mean, what state is next? Oh that’s right, Texas. First Texas doesn’t care about its citizens and now it’s next in line to be like California. It’s getting hard to follow your meandering psychobabble. "

Its relevant for the same reason OK is.  CA doesn't control its borders with US states.  It has the same issues with housing costs as CA cities and receives homeless residents of other municipalities and states because it treats the homeless favorably.

And yes, TX is next in line to be CA because it is experiencing rapid urban growth.  Rising housing costs is the price of success.  In the world, can you identify a single city that is as "affordable" as the countryside? 

And welcome to the board, sheeeit.  Nobody else is quite as disingenuous as you. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Chrispy 132]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

They have a housing crisis in LA too.  Housing is cheap in Fresno.  Middle class folks in the bay area and LA can go buy a home there now.  Why aren't they?  The median home price in Fresno is over 100k less than the median home price in Houston.  The housing "crisis" in Fresno and similarly located towns is quite the opposite as mortgages remain underwater from the housing crash.  And again, LA and SF are mature cities without greenfield and surrounded by natural barriers.

And any housing development that artificially suppresses cost and rations housing so that it can be "affordable" is welfare.  It doesn't matter whether they limit access via maximum income or lottery, its welfare.  The middle class is getting priced out because wealthier people are willing to pay more.  This is the market at work.  If you want more welfare, fine, but understand that what you're calling for is more welfare and regulation, not less.  If 8 million people want to live in SF, and there is only room for 800,000, the richest 800,000 are going to be taking the housing units if you let the market do its work.

Yes, multiple times now you've said CA's welfare programs are the problem.  Remember you said this,

What do you think that means?  It means other states don't fucking care enough so their poor people are moving to CA.

OK matters because CA doesn't exist in a vacuum, but you can use pretty much any red state as a fill-in for OK.  They don't care so their residents move to CA to be "given" something.

If you empty the prisons, people will leave CA and housing prices will plummet.  I'm not advocating for emptying prisons though. I simply understand that demand is the primary factor driving up cost, not supply.  You have no plan but implementing more welfare.

Its relevant for the same reason OK is.  CA doesn't control its borders with US states.  It has the same issues with housing costs as CA cities and receives homeless residents of other municipalities and states because it treats the homeless favorably.

And yes, TX is next in line to be CA because it is experiencing rapid urban growth.  Rising housing costs is the price of success.  In the world, can you identify a single city that is as "affordable" as the countryside? 

And welcome to the board, sheeeit.  Nobody else is quite as disingenuous as you. 

Population, desirability, natural barriers, California’s success, it’s all the same to me as I’ve already stated. Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. The one theme that I keep encountering is that it’s not California’s fault. No, it’s a bunch of finger pointing, platitudes, and zero accountability for the disastrous policies in place. Misconstruing anything that I’ve laid out as more welfare or artificial is so ridiculous, it’s tough to muster a reply. I’ve laid out my plans and reasoning that I believe will work, which is more than most on this board, who only want to explain why it can’t be done. But I think it’s great that you’re fighting the good fight and continuing the idea that the current situation was simply unavoidable. But this dance grows tiresome and is starting to become redundant at this point. So, in that vein, it will be interesting to see what happens to California as a case study, because they’re going to continue the current status quo that has worked so well for them. 

Also, what is sheeeit? 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Well, this can be the Democrat incompetence/corruption general. No need to start a million samethreads.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Quote

44 Dems, Including Wasserman Schultz, Exempted Pakistani IT Aides From Background Checks

Among the red flags in Abid’s background were a $1.1 million bankruptcy; six lawsuits against him or a company he owned; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records. Public court records show that Imran and Abid operated a car dealership referred to as CIA that took $100,000 from an Iraqi government official who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities. Numerous members of the family were tied to cryptic LLCs such as New Dawn 2001, operated out of Imran’s residence, Virginia corporation records show. Imran was the subject of repeated calls to police by multiple women and had multiple misdemeanor convictions for driving offenses, according to court records.

Edited April 3, 2018 by SmokeyBear1861

[F250 28886]

Does anyone know if there are numbers on the most promising voter groups? Say, registered Democrats that did not vote in 2016 vs. active independent moderates or 3rd party voters?

[TahoeHorn 107]

On 4/2/2018 at 2:19 PM, FondrenRoad said:

... Housing is cheap in Fresno.  Middle class folks in the bay area and LA can go buy a home there now.  Why aren't they? ...

Fresno?  Hell, there are places where you can buy a house for $10K.  Parts of Detroit, for example.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Quote

 

Clinton was “the best-qualified candidate," Obama said. "She wasn’t perfect, but she was way more perfect than many of the alternatives."

In her remarks, Obama also hit the low voter turnout for Trump's victory in 2016, saying that voters were not "willing" to go out and vote for Clinton, whom she said was likely the most qualified candidate in history.

"We've got to be willing, when we do find qualified people, to vote for them," Obama said. "And we didn't do that in this election."

"So I think people should be less ... disheartened that me and Oprah don't want to run, and more disheartened by the fact that Hillary Clinton, probably the most qualified person to ever seek the office of the presidency, lost. She lost."

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/381946-michelle-obama-my-husband-was-the-good-parent-compared-to-trump

Billary Clinton 2.0 coming in 2020

[Dick Tremayne 103]

I really don't care as long as it's not another centrist neoliberal. If that's the best "the left" can do, then let's just have four more years of trump and accelerate this bitch off the cliff rather than inching up to the edge.

[CHIEF 5095]

I just checked UHaul prices on a 26 ft. moving truck. They want over $4000 to bring a truck from Fresno to Austin, if you go from Austin to Fresno it is bearly $1000. What that says to me is everyone that can, wants to leave California, and no-one is considering going back. UHaul has to pay employees to haul empty trucks back to locations in California. I bet if you count only the legal citizen's population numbers, California would have a negative growth rate. The state is ran by batshit crazy loons.

 

CHIEF

[Pancho 45236]

Eric Garcetti touring Iowa, Souf Carolina, and New Hapshire...

Surprise candidate?

[bad motherfucker 315]

Fuck California!  If one is going to build a wall, build it on the east side of the San Andreas fault all the way to Canada.

[NIUHuskies 504]

San Andreas fault only goes to the San Francisco Bay 

[F250 28886]

I would donate to this campaign.

[Satchel 6949]

Mitch Landrieu or Pete Buttgieg at the top of the ticket with Senator Harris as VP.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Mitch Landrieu has about as much a chance as Bobby Jindal did in the GOP.

I like the guy but he’s not presidential material 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Is there a bridge for sale?

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

On 4/12/2018 at 3:58 PM, CHIEF said:

I just checked UHaul prices on a 26 ft. moving truck. They want over $4000 to bring a truck from Fresno to Austin, if you go from Austin to Fresno it is bearly $1000. What that says to me is everyone that can, wants to leave California, and no-one is considering going back. UHaul has to pay employees to haul empty trucks back to locations in California. I bet if you count only the legal citizen's population numbers, California would have a negative growth rate. The state is ran by batshit crazy loons.

 

CHIEF

California is a big state, hoss, and just because people are leaving places like Fresno and San Bernardino does not mean it's a shithole. I'd bet you'd have a pretty hard time returning a U-Haul to the Panhandle or or somewhere else on the northwest plains or most of East Texas too. 

[Sawbonz 27724]

What about Chris Coons from Delaware? They have him on NPR quite a bit and he seems very thoughtful and even tempered 

[Brandywine 1317]

Michael Bloomberg/Kamala Harris 

Or visa versa 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Brandywine

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

 

11 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Michael Bloomberg/Kamala Harris 

Or visa versa 

 

[relapse98 634]

Mitch Landrieu has about as much a chance as Bobby Jindal did in the GOP.
I like the guy but he’s not presidential material 

Donald. Trump.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, relapse98 said:

On 4/21/2018 at 11:35 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mitch Landrieu has about as much a chance as Bobby Jindal did in the GOP.
I like the guy but he’s not presidential material 

Donald. Trump.

Okay, here’s why this doesn’t work:  Trump was a huge shinny object in a field of meh candidates, he also got a ton of outside help.

Mitch Landrieu is not a shinny object, he doesn’t stand out, and the majority of the state of Louisiana wouldn’t vote for him to be Governor.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarahmimms/inside-a-divisive-fight-over-how-a-top-progressive-think

One of Washington's leading liberalinstitutions grappled with a divisive internal battle over sexual harassment during and in the aftermath of the 2016 election, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News and interviews with 19 current and former staffers.

The Center for American Progress, the politics and policy hub for the Democratic establishment, has put out four differentpolicy proposal papers on handling sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as data on how pervasive the issue is “across all industries.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

On 4/2/2018 at 12:53 PM, FondrenRoad said:

Where are you going to put this affordable housing in SF if you aren't going to tear down market rate housing? Are you going to tear down industrial or commercial use buildings instead?  Even if you do so, how are you going to artificially depress the land value so that you can sell or rent units at less than market rate without it being "welfare"?  And again, even if you, instead, magically find non-existent greenfield for your projects, they will be open to residents of other US states who will move to CA to live in them because their home states don't offer jack shit.  And its pretty laughable that while you attempt to demonize welfare, your affordable housing plan is welfare on steroids.  

 

"You can’t possibly be concerned the doors to California will be any more open than they already are. The billions spent in cash assistance payments, vendor payments, and various welfare programs have made sure the message is heard loud and clear throughout the country. 1 out of every 3 Americans on welfare reside in California, I’m fairly positive the word is out. But sure, Californian’s are spending 30% of their income on housing, 40% higher for energy, and getting priced out of their homes simply because their state is so successful."

Again, they spend 30% of their income because they and many other people want to live where they're living.  The state is successful.  They can also go live in Fresno in CA if they want to and spend less, but have just about the same opportunity for income as they would have in flyover country.  People want to live near job centers and that's why it costs more to live near job centers.  And again, you keep saying shit like the "word is out" on CA and then you say you're going to fix it by building welfare housing for all-comers.  How are you going to keep the "word from coming out" when you do that?  The problem for CA isn't illegal immigrants who are ineligible for CA welfare programs.  Its internal migration from other states who are eligible for all benefits.  And CA wants that wall to keep other Americans out if the rest of America isn't going to start giving a shit about their own residents.

"My point on Oklahoma was, of course, that comparing states is often fruitless. I’m not sure why you keep throwing Oklahoma out as an example when we’re discussing California. It’s a strange misdirection tactic to be sure. "

Its fruitless because nobody wants to live in OK because there is no opportunity and more poverty, and OK is disinterested in doing anything about either one.

"I’m glad that you didn’t reiterate how great the average Latino family is doing, as all of the data suggests otherwise. That was almost as insane and suggesting that only crime will make market rate housing affordable. As for the personal attacks on my personal success, assume what you will. I would spend less time focusing on me and more on the homeless man about to take a dump on your front lawn. "

They make it work and they do so in CA because thats where they have more opportunity.  They could go be poor in OK or Iowa.  They don't because their kids won't have a chance to be anything in OK or Iowa.  And yes, only an increase in crime will change the market rate for housing in markets that are completely developed.  Its impossible to increase supply by a big enough amount to make a difference, so you have to tackle demand.  High crime does that.

My lawn is just fine.  I'm in NYC which guarantees shelter rooms to homeless, and it gets its own share of busing from careless communities as well.  Is it NYC's fault that homeless come here for shelter or is it your town's fault for kicking its residents to more caring locales?  Incidentally, NYC has added 500,000 people since the 2010 census.  Do you really believe that those 500,000 are the only ones who want to move to NYC, or do you understand that they are the ones willing to pay the highest price to live in available units?  Are you aware that NYC had and has 0 greenfield development opportunities and has been developing on contaminated brownfield sites which require lengthy and expensive environmental cleanup?  The same issue arises in SF and you think it should be expedited?  Its fucking easy in Texas because you're just making a subdivision in a cow pasture, and not cleaning up a radium dump first.  Personally, like you, I think something needs to be done to keep middle class and lower class people present in mature cities.  I just understand that the only way to do that without being a magnet is to restrict it only to those who were already present, but priced out.

 

Incidentally, the same issues will crop up in Texas cities eventually.  Even though there is open land 100 miles from Houston, at some point the distance to the core is going to be too great, and you are already seeing the core of cities becoming too expensive for lower and middle classes.

 

 

Total bullshit. California has a net negative migration of American citizens each year. By far the highest in the country. Those moving to California are those who can already afford it, illegals or homeless. 

The lower economic Americans continue to flee the state in droves each year. 

You are full of shit. 

“For many years, more people have been leaving California for other states than have been moving here. According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migration—about 2.5 percent of its total population. These population losses are low in historical terms. The graph below shows data from the Internal Revenue Service on the movement of income tax filers in and out of California since 1990. (Data on tax filers does not cover the entire population because some people do not earn enough income to necessitate filing taxes.) As the graph shows, net out-migration from 1990 to 2006 was, on average, more than double what is was in the most recent ten years. “

 

http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

 

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

On 4/2/2018 at 2:19 PM, FondrenRoad said:

They have a housing crisis in LA too.  Housing is cheap in Fresno.  Middle class folks in the bay area and LA can go buy a home there now.  Why aren't they?  The median home price in Fresno is over 100k less than the median home price in Houston.  The housing "crisis" in Fresno and similarly located towns is quite the opposite as mortgages remain underwater from the housing crash.  And again, LA and SF are mature cities without greenfield and surrounded by natural barriers.

And any housing development that artificially suppresses cost and rations housing so that it can be "affordable" is welfare.  It doesn't matter whether they limit access via maximum income or lottery, its welfare.  The middle class is getting priced out because wealthier people are willing to pay more.  This is the market at work.  If you want more welfare, fine, but understand that what you're calling for is more welfare and regulation, not less.  If 8 million people want to live in SF, and there is only room for 800,000, the richest 800,000 are going to be taking the housing units if you let the market do its work.

Yes, multiple times now you've said CA's welfare programs are the problem.  Remember you said this,

What do you think that means?  It means other states don't fucking care enough so their poor people are moving to CA.

OK matters because CA doesn't exist in a vacuum, but you can use pretty much any red state as a fill-in for OK.  They don't care so their residents move to CA to be "given" something.

If you empty the prisons, people will leave CA and housing prices will plummet.  I'm not advocating for emptying prisons though. I simply understand that demand is the primary factor driving up cost, not supply.  You have no plan but implementing more welfare.

Its relevant for the same reason OK is.  CA doesn't control its borders with US states.  It has the same issues with housing costs as CA cities and receives homeless residents of other municipalities and states because it treats the homeless favorably.

And yes, TX is next in line to be CA because it is experiencing rapid urban growth.  Rising housing costs is the price of success.  In the world, can you identify a single city that is as "affordable" as the countryside? 

And welcome to the board, sheeeit.  Nobody else is quite as disingenuous as you. 

Love it. Your argument is that he middle class have no place in San Fran or LA and are irresponsible for not moving to Fresno. 

Also, reality  those middle class families you speak of have middle class jobs.  Those jobs aren’t readily available to just jump city to city as you please  it’s not Walmart or McDonalds.  You paint a fairy tale of employment mobility that simply does not exists  

I'm sure family’s who have lived there for a generation or two feel the same. 

Lol. Be Rich, be homeless or get the fuck to Fresno

SF's policies of eliminating the middle class and using homeless handouts as "carbon credits" to make them feel ok about it, are responsible for the homeless crisis.  More handouts didn't work, they simply attracted more seeking handouts instead of trying to reverse course and stop eliminating the middle class (*see also immigration policy).  Now they will have to deal with the shit and needle filled mess they have created.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

FRoad: “what do you think that means?”

california doesn’t give two shits about the middle or lower class American citizens

For decades California has been able to shift their federal tax burden to the rest of the country to subsidize their high state taxes.  Thankfully the new tax law will severely limit that and the will no longer get to spend others money  

But hey, according to you they are super cool to the homeless and that’s why they come. Fuck those tax paying families for not being richer. 

Edited May 3, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

FRoad: “what do you think that means?”

california doesn’t give two shits about the middle or lower class American citizens

For decades California has been able to shift their federal tax burden to the rest of the country to subsidize their high state taxes.  Thankfully the new tax law will severely limit that and the will no longer get to spend others money  

But hey, according to you they are super cool to the homeless and that’s why they come. Fuck those tax paying families for not being richer. 

Lol.  California hasn't shifted shit.  They pay significantly more into federal coffers than they get back.  Its piss poor red states that steal from the feds.

And yeah, they actually are cool to the homeless.  They also give a shit about middle and lower class Californians.  That's why they try to increase the amount of below market rate housing.  And again, the market rate is the market rate.  Its high because people want to live there.  Your bumfuck small town is cheap because nobody wants to live there.

[High Plains Drifter 11054]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

FRoad: “what do you think that means?”

california doesn’t give two shits about the middle or lower class American citizens

For decades California has been able to shift their federal tax burden to the rest of the country to subsidize their high state taxes.  Thankfully the new tax law will severely limit that and the will no longer get to spend others money  

But hey, according to you they are super cool to the homeless and that’s why they come. Fuck those tax paying families for not being richer. 

 

This is so wrong it casts shade on anything you say, ever.

 

 

Do you see a trend there? With the exceptions of Texas and Florida, every single red state drains federal money.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by High Plains Drifter

[David Dennison 19001]

29 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

This is so wrong it casts shade on anything you say, ever.

 

 

Do you see a trend there? With the exceptions of Texas and Florida, every single red state drains federal money.

 

Here's another good one.

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

more rich people live in the most beautiful part of the country, shocker

and yes, writing off all of your state and property taxes on your federal return is passing the buck to the rest of the country.  Their federal rate was effectively lower than the rest of the country from high local taxes.  California constantly raising these rates year to year to pay for their pet projects is shifting part of that burden to other states.

Your argument of "they pay more" is quite funny and incredibly hypocritical.   The most recent tax reform bill was blasted for giving "tax breaks to the rich", their response was that they deserve it because they pay the majority of all the taxes anyway.  Funny how phony the CA representatives are, as they blast the Trump tax plan on one end and then threaten law suits to protect their 1% from the SALT tax cap on the other - Why?  Because they pay more.  Are we to assume you approved of the Trump tax plan then?  Good for the goose, good for the gander?

Why is the argument ok for California (we pay more!) but it is not for the top earners who received a tax break (we pay more!).  When they can't keep their bullshit straight for five minuets, it casts shade on all of their arguments and complaints. 

[Brisketexan 105495]

4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

more rich people live in the most beautiful part of the country, shocker

and yes, writing off all of your state and property taxes on your federal return is passing the buck to the rest of the country.  Their federal rate was effectively lower than the rest of the country from high local taxes.  California constantly raising these rates year to year to pay for their pet projects is shifting part of that burden to other states.

Your argument of "they pay more" is quite funny and incredibly hypocritical.   The most recent tax reform bill was blasted for giving "tax breaks to the rich", their response was that they deserve it because they pay the majority of all the taxes anyway.  Funny how phony the CA representatives are, as they blast the Trump tax plan on one end and then threaten law suits to protect their 1% from the SALT tax cap on the other - Why?  Because they pay more.  Are we to assume you approved of the Trump tax plan then?  Good for the goose, good for the gander?

Why is the argument ok for California (we pay more!) but it is not for the top earners who received a tax break (we pay more!).  When they can't keep their bullshit straight for five minuets, it casts shade on all of their arguments and complaints. 

[Aqua Buddha 14646]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

more rich people live in the most beautiful part of the country, shocker

and yes, writing off all of your state and property taxes on your federal return is passing the buck to the rest of the country.  Their federal rate was effectively lower than the rest of the country from high local taxes.  California constantly raising these rates year to year to pay for their pet projects is shifting part of that burden to other states.

Your argument of "they pay more" is quite funny and incredibly hypocritical.   The most recent tax reform bill was blasted for giving "tax breaks to the rich", their response was that they deserve it because they pay the majority of all the taxes anyway.  Funny how phony the CA representatives are, as they blast the Trump tax plan on one end and then threaten law suits to protect their 1% from the SALT tax cap on the other - Why?  Because they pay more.  Are we to assume you approved of the Trump tax plan then?  Good for the goose, good for the gander?

Why is the argument ok for California (we pay more!) but it is not for the top earners who received a tax break (we pay more!).  When they can't keep their bullshit straight for five minuets, it casts shade on all of their arguments and complaints. 

You mean like the bullshit from the right who says they're "Taxed Enough Already" and who think they pay 50% of their salary in taxes despite the vast majority of them paying only a fraction of that, if anything at all?

[David Dennison 19001]

24 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You mean like the bullshit from the right who says they're "Taxed Enough Already" and who think they pay 50% of their salary in taxes despite the vast majority of them paying only a fraction of that, if anything at all?

Most people who bitch about their federal income taxes have no idea what marginal tax rates are.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Do the Gary Johnson goofs get behind Bernie?

 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21062]

Not convinced that any of the top Democratic candidates can beat Trump. It seems easy, but I don't trust American voters to choose a woman over Trump, and Bernie and Biden are so fucking old. 

Can the Democrats not find a 40-50 year old dude from the Midwest with military experience?  Jason Kander is pretty young and hasn't held a high position, but who fucking cares at this point. It might be considered a positive. At first glance it looks like he would destroy Trump. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not convinced that any of the top Democratic candidates can beat Trump. It seems easy, but I don't trust American voters to choose a woman over Trump, and Bernie and Biden are so fucking old. 

Can the Democrats not find a 40-50 year old dude from the Midwest with military experience?  

I’m of the same opinion.  Ds have to make it easy to vote for them this cycle.  I don’t see anyone that fits the bill.  It’s worrying.  

[Fozzz 152]

Probably comes down to how the economy is doing at that time.

[Pescado_Rojo 19452]

28 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not convinced that any of the top Democratic candidates can beat Trump. It seems easy, but I don't trust American voters to choose a woman over Trump, and Bernie and Biden are so fucking old. 

Can the Democrats not find a 40-50 year old dude from the Midwest with military experience?  Jason Kander is pretty young and hasn't held a high position, but who fucking cares at this point. It might be considered a positive. At first glance it looks like he would destroy Trump. 

Kander is a interesting, but I think he needs to hold Federal office first. He was a 1 term secretary of state in Missouri...Maybe run for Congress in his home district. I have no idea who holds his home seat or their party affiliation. I know the KC side of Missouri is pretty dark red these days. 

The guy you want is Seth Moulton. Decorated Marine Corp Infantry platoon leader, multiple combat tours, young and "politician hot". Ran against and unseated a long term D incumbent in his house district, and breaks with party leadership quite a bit. He's a smart dude, but I fear he's too "hetero white male" for the far left of the party. 

[Hank Kingsley 21062]

Looked up Moulton and it seems he would do well vs. Trump.  His background is pretty elite (Phillips Academy, Harvard) but he'd probably still wipe the floor with Trump in any debate. 

I get your concern with Kander never holding Federal office, but will that really matter going against a former reality TV star? His background is real interesting as well.  He was raised Jewish, mom and dad were both in law enforcement, born/lived in Kansas, volunteered and was an Army lieutenant in Afghanistan.  That's a lot of kryptonite for Trump. 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Hank Kingsley

[Equinox 95]

What about ones who dropped out last time, like Martin O'Malley?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bernie better get with the fucking program if he wants to run.