If Democratic Socialism works...

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
Then why do liberal states like California and Michigan need a handout because their budget is in the shitter?

Why do cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and Washington DC look like third world cities?

These cities and states have been run by Democrats unchecked for decades and look where they are today.

What makes these Democrats think that the same policies will work for the nation, when one only needs to look at liberal areas of the nation and see the failure?

Discuss...
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#2
You're cherry-picking facts. I would point out that "blue states" tend to have higher per capita GDPs than "red states", and that the former generally put more money into the federal government than they get, whereas the opposite is generally the case for the later. We could also point out that people who live in Republican-voting rural areas, tend to poorer and less educated than their city-dwelling counterparts, and that there are more people in rural areas on government assistance than their are in urban areas.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
You're cherry-picking facts. I would point out that "blue states" tend to have higher per capita GDPs than "red states", and that the former generally put more money into the federal government than they get, whereas the opposite is generally the case for the later. We could also point out that people who live in Republican-voting rural areas, tend to poorer and less educated than their city-dwelling counterparts, and that there are more people in rural areas on government assistance than their are in urban areas.
You didn't answer my question. You avoided it all together. I'm not talking about GDP's I'm talking about budgets and welfare programs. GDP is a whole separate beast that I think has more to do with population. California was fine until the Democrats and their RINO Governor started screwing shit up with liberal economic policy. Now their budget is 25 Billion in the shitter and will probably get worse.

Michigan has the HIGHEST unemployment of any state, also a highly progressive income tax, second to Rhode Island... another liberal state. They both spend like sailors just like California, and look where it leaves them. You may also notice "Red states" don't have the budget deficit that California, Michigan and Rhode Island have.

Detroit, Washington DC and Philly have been run by Democrats UNCHECKED for years and they are filthy crime ridden welfare dumps. You can't deny these cities were created by Republicans, because Democrats have run them for decades, and what do they get? Crap.
 
Last edited:

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#4
More effects how well an area does than just the government. Also--in the case of Michigan--we had a Republican governor before our current Democratic one, and have long had a Republican legislature. That tends to tie things up and keep things inconsistent. Furthermore, nobody would argue that all politicians from either major party are competent, and I don't think every policy stance considered liberal works in all times and places.

Edit: Oh, and Michigan has to balance its budget every year. It's been a struggle lately due to the state of the automotive industry and whatnot, but we do it.
 
Last edited:

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#5
Lets look at a few states here. We've already covered California. Lets look at the next two GDP power houses in the U.S. Texas and New York.

Texas is the second largest state population wise in the nation. It is also probably the most conservative state in the country and has a very capitalistic style economy. Texas has an economy that was the second largest in the nation and the 7th largest in the world based on GDP and a 5.7% unemployment rate. It's population is only 10 million less people then California. Cities in Texas are hardly shitholes, I've been there. Also Texas has a 11 Billion dollar SURPLUS. Link

Why is is that Texas is doing fantastic and California is in the shitter? Even tho they are practically the same population, and have almost the same GDP? Texas has adopted a capitalist economy where California has adopted a socialist economy.

Lets look at New York. Another Liberal state. It has less people then Texas and California. It has the 3rd largest in population in the U.S. and also has the 3rd highest GDP in the U.S. Yet is has a 7% unemployment rate (with less of a population then Texas) and New York City is a shithole (been there too). It's also 12.5 Billion dollars in the hole.

Two liberal states, bad economies. One conservative state, great economy. The only constant is the style of economic system.
 
Last edited:

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#6
Lets look at a few states here. We've already covered California. Lets look at the next two GDP power houses in the U.S. Texas and New York.

Texas is the second largest state population wise in the nation. It is also probably the most conservative state in the country and has a very capitalistic style economy. Texas has an economy that was the second largest in the nation and the 7th largest in the world based on GDP and a 5.7% unemployment rate. It's population is only 10 million less people then California. Cities in Texas are hardly shitholes, I've been there. Also Texas has a 11 Billion dollar SURPLUS. Link

Why is is that Texas is doing fantastic and California is in the shitter? Even tho they are practically the same population, and have almost the same GDP? Texas has adopted a capitalist economy where California has adopted a socialist economy.

Lets look at New York. Another Liberal state. It has less people then Texas and California. It has the 3rd largest in population in the U.S. and also has the 3rd highest GDP in the U.S. Yet is has a 7% unemployment rate (with less of a population then Texas) and New York City is a shithole (been there too). It's also 12.5 Billion dollars in the hole.

Two liberal states, bad economies. One conservative state, great economy. The only constant is the style of economic system.
I'm sure if California, Michigan, and New York had massive oil companies based in their respective states, their unemployment rate and budgets would look amazing too, Republican or Democrat.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#7
Perhaps if Arnold hadn't repealed most of the taxation in California our budget wouldn't be in the shitter.

Also, we give 1.3 dollars to the federal government for every one we get back. For an economy of 161 billion, that's quite a lot of money we never see again, because it's going to states like Kentucky, which despite your insinuation, receive federal bailouts continuously, because they're too poor to cover their expenses.

There's a massive fallacy here, which is that red states don't have to receive bailouts. They've received them nonstop for decades, mostly from states like California that suffer for it.

Get some focus.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#8
pro2A said:
Lets look at a few states here. Texas is the second largest state population wise in the nation. It is also probably the most conservative state in the country and has a very capitalist style economy. Texas has an economy that was the second largest in the nation and the 7th largest in the world based on GDP and a 5.7% unemployment rate. It's only 10 million people less then California. Cities in Texas are hardly shitholes, I've been there. Also Texas has a 11 Billion dollar SURPLUS.
Let's look at the homicide rate in Houston and Los Angeles. Houston has a population of roughly 2,208,180, and had 379 homicides in 2007. Los Angeles has a population of roughly 3,849,378, and had 392 homicides in 2007. As far as per capita GDP goes, California ranks in at 41,663, and Texas at 36,920. Also, I recently stayed in California for six months, and it's very nice. See, I can cherry-pick facts too.

pro2A said:
Lets look at New York. Another Liberal state. It has less people then Texas and California both. It is 3rd in population and also has the 3rd highest GDP. It has a 7% unemployment rate (with less of a population then Texas) and New York City is a shithole. It's also 12.5 Billion dollars in the hole.
It has the 3rd highest GDP and the 3rd highest population? It sounds awful prosperous to me, and folks there must think it's doing well if they're sticking around.

pro2A said:
Two liberal states, bad economies. One conservative state, great economy. The only constant is the style of economic system.
Every economist will tell you that production is more important than employment.
 
Last edited:

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#9
Perhaps if Arnold hadn't repealed most of the taxation in California our budget wouldn't be in the shitter.
Having high taxes is why we're in the condition were in in the first place. It's really not that hard. High taxes = less spending. Low taxes = high spending. Why would I spend more if I was taxed more? Where is this imaginary money coming from? I'm not going to spend the same if I am taxed more then when I did when I was taxed less.

More people working from lower corporate taxes means more money being spent from more workers paying taxes... which probably explains why Texas is doing so well. Not so with California. The less people you have paying more taxes means less spending and less money going to the government in the form of taxes. The more you raise it, the less money you get.

It's 6th grade math. :rolleyes:

I also must remind you Kentucky has a liberal governor who has impeded economic growth by vetoing many capitalistic style economic bills.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#10
I'm sure if California, Michigan, and New York had massive oil companies based in their respective states, their unemployment rate and budgets would look amazing too, Republican or Democrat.
California has enough offshore oil that they could have oil companies located in state, but they refuse to get the oil. Which is not exactly a pro-business conservative philosophy.