Progressives, part 3...

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Well if you enjoy a 13% state income tax rate, plus high local taxes, plus regulations out the ass, plus a massive liberal administrative state in Sacramento micromanaging everything you do (especially businesses), plus extremely high costs, plus filthy drug-infested sanctuary cities and a boatload of gang bangers, then yes, I can see how some people enjoy it there.

I don't believe the "filthy drug-infested sanctuary cities and boatload of gang bangers" is truer there than any other large city.  I'd rather walk the streets of SF at night then say the east side of Cleveland or Downtown Birmingham, AL.  

As far a the taxes and regs go, I for one would not want anything to do with those.  But for the countless startup firms and large corporations that chose to headquarter there, they must see it differently.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I don't believe the "filthy drug-infested sanctuary cities and boatload of gang bangers" is truer there than any other large city.  I'd rather walk the streets of SF at night then say the east side of Cleveland or Downtown Birmingham, AL.  

Not to be rude or anything, but as someone who lived in that area (SF/Marin co.) for years, this is a wildly ignorant statement to make. 

You could make such a statement about cities like Rohnert Park, Novato or even Sausalito, but not downtown SF.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Did you miss the part where I said that both parties were shifting away from the middle? To most that would clearly show that it's not just one side.
On the other hand, I kinda like the idea that you're paying so much attention to what I say and trying to troll. That makes two people who like to argue with me about everything! I wonder how many more I can gather up?
Maybe I'll say something that Otrap and I can get into it about. Wouldn't that be... Bananas?

I’m really not trying to troll. Been a member of this site long enough, turning into a troll would make no sense. 

I just feel that a lot of times it’s a bunch of people with the same ideology posting things that they agree with and make it seem like it’s the truth. Nothing wrong, IMO, with someone pushing back a little with some feedback from “the other side” of the argument. 

And I actually did miss where you said it’s going on on both sides. So my bad on that. 

posted by SportsAndLady

I’m really not trying to troll. Been a member of this site long enough, turning into a troll would make no sense. 

I just feel that a lot of times it’s a bunch of people with the same ideology posting things that they agree with and make it seem like it’s the truth. Nothing wrong, IMO, with someone pushing back a little with some feedback from “the other side” of the argument. 

And I actually did miss where you said it’s going on on both sides. So my bad on that. 

You remember that post you had talking about a chick you knew that you were driving with who was one of those super-progressives who basically took anything someone said and manufactured a reason to be offended by it to the point you were mind-boggled at how far she'd be reaching in what she was saying? I've come to the conclusion this thread is essentially the conservative version of people like that.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Not to be rude or anything, but as someone who lived in that area (SF/Marin co.) for years, this is a wildly ignorant statement to make. 

You could make such a statement about cities like Rohnert Park, Novato or even Sausalito, but not downtown SF.

I'm just telling you my impression having stayed there for a week.  It wasn't some sort of Eden, but I was expecting to find it much worse than it was.  I don't claim to have an expert view of SF.  It was only my impression - that's all.  I have traveled to lots of big cities and SF doesn't stand out as any bette or worse in terms of urban blight than the average place I've been.  I've seen cleaner, but I've seen worse too.  

SF has smelled like a toilet every time I've been there. It's been about 5 years since my last visit, though.

The entire state of California is trash

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I was downtown.  I stayed right next to Union Square.  On a day off, I walked from there to the Presidio.  That route crosses a wide range of neighborhoods.  Some were nice some were not.  But it really didn't seem to be any different than most any other big city.  I saw homeless people, but they didn't seem any more prevalent than Chicago or NYC or Atlanta or plenty of other cities.  I thought things looked pretty nice.  

Huh.  Well shoot.  Maybe they've cleaned things up since last year.
 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Did you miss the part where I said that both parties were shifting away from the middle? To most that would clearly show that it's not just one side.
On the other hand, I kinda like the idea that you're paying so much attention to what I say and trying to troll. That makes two people who like to argue with me about everything! I wonder how many more I can gather up?
Maybe I'll say something that Otrap and I can get into it about. Wouldn't that be... Bananas?

Feel free.  I can argue with anyone.  ;)

posted by SportsAndLady

The entire state of California is trash

Northern California seems pretty nice.

posted by justincredible

SF has smelled like a toilet every time I've been there. It's been about 5 years since my last visit, though.

I worked there for several months a few years ago.  Some good food, but I was otherwise totally unimpressed with the city.  Going out to dinner and some of the bars during the week - it was just dead.  Weird vibe.  I've been to dozens of big cities - SF comes in dead last.  Nothing to do with liberals, I just think it's the most overrated city in the US.

And, yes, it did smell.  Though I think part of that is the ocean.

posted by SportsAndLady

The entire state of California is trash

Someone's never been to La Jolla or Big Sur.  Plus, Sacramento was pretty nice when I was there.  So was San Diego.

Wish I could say the same about LA, but last time I was there, the yellow haze was thick.

posted by O-Trap

Wish I could say the same about LA, but last time I was there, the yellow haze was thick.

Problem I always heard with LA (aside from all the phony wanna-be actors/actresses) was everything is too spread out, making the traffic unavoidable if you want to do anything.  Not a "walkable" city like NY, Chicago, etc...

I think a lot of the "poor working class" are simply trapped in these cities, with too little money to enjoy much.  Many people simply refuse to move to better their situation.  There's reasons for that, but not many good ones when you're struggling to survive.  I actually had this argument with a co-worker once, and he laughed "yeah, they should just move".  To which I responded "yeah, it's really hard....that's why millions haven't moved to this country from other continents with literally nothing".  That ended the argument.

posted by gut

Problem I always heard with LA (aside from all the phony wanna-be actors/actresses) was everything is too spread out, making the traffic unavoidable if you want to do anything.  Not a "walkable" city like NY, Chicago, etc...

I think a lot of the "poor working class" are simply trapped in these cities, with too little money to enjoy much.  Many people simply refuse to move to better their situation.  There's reasons for that, but not many good ones when you're struggling to survive.  I actually had this argument with a co-worker once, and he laughed "yeah, they should just move".  To which I responded "yeah, it's really hard....that's why millions haven't moved to this country from other continents with literally nothing".  That ended the argument.

I've always wondered about that.  People make moving out to be such a huge undertaking, and while picking up everything you own and paying to have it transported somewhere else is not the sort of thing the people in question can necessarily afford to just do, it definitely makes more sense to make it work, and if you have friends or family that will help, it reduces actual cost significantly.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

A lot of people are leaving.  "Most" is not correct.  There are 38 million people there.  If "most" were leaving, they would be a lot less.  

 

There are a lot of people leaving that place, I agree.  But there are millions who chose to stay.  For them, the reasons for staying outweigh those for going.  The original point here was someone asked "why would anyone live there?".   A lot of people  have a lot of reasons for doing so.  

Lol, ok con_alma.

As I said, based on your logic 100% of the population would have to leave.

posted by O-Trap

I've always wondered about that.  People make moving out to be such a huge undertaking...

And it's not like they have a ton to move.

I think there have been some examples of companies that suffer from a local worker shortage that go and recruit in depressed areas.  Guarantee a job, a better paying job, in an area likely safer and lower COL, etc.  All you have to do is get your butt there for work.....and, few takers.  It's a perfect example of welfare taking away the incentive to work.

posted by gut

And it's not like they have a ton to move.

I think there have been some examples of companies that suffer from a local worker shortage that go and recruit in depressed areas.  Guarantee a job, a better paying job, in an area likely safer and lower COL, etc.  All you have to do is get your butt there for work.....and, few takers.  It's a perfect example of welfare taking away the incentive to work.

Sure.  That has to be absolutely infuriating.

As to whether or not they don't have much to move, that's not always true.  Most of the homes around my house are furnished about as much as any home.  In some cases, more so.  The furniture is sometimes a little more ... suspect ... but it's about the same amount of furniture.

posted by O-Trap

As to whether or not they don't have much to move, that's not always true.

Sure, but it's probably cheaper to replace it then it is to move it across the country.  Economically/financially it's just a horrible decision not to move for the job, but that's not surprising.  If I remember correctly, one or more of the companies was even offering a bonus of like $5k to cover moving, but you had to complete 90 days to get it (and, yes, I realize that doesn't help someone without the money to move).

Why did we need national single payer?  Why do we have federal welfare?  Why can't states have whatever benefit level they want, and tax their people accordingly?  Why so little concern for state rights?  I guess the socialism inherent in today's liberals requires central planning, which doesn't really work if 50 different states can do their own thing.

I think this is why they want to do away with the filibuster and electoral college - they know they can't fund it through taxes, so they want the federal government to fund it with debt (or, in the case of AOC and Boatshoes, printing money).

Seems like this should be a big winner in like 2/3 of the states - the Democrats want to trample your state rights, and have the big cities dictate how everyone in the country has to live (and the taxes they pay).  The Senate should never go back to Dem control until the political climate/agenda changes.  Dems take the Senate, first thing to go is the filibuster.....then packing the SCOTUS....and then ending the electoral college.

If dems actually start making moves to abolish the EC there's going to be massive protests and it will most likely get very ugly. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

If dems actually start making moves to abolish the EC there's going to be massive protests and it will most likely get very ugly. 

Most people will not grasp the consequences until it's too late.  And it may be easy to forget, in today's uncompromising Congress, that checks & balances are good and one party rule is not.  Really need a libertarian candidate to pound the drum that the best solution for everyone is to give power back to the states, and stop a bumbling federal govt from trying to come up with failed "one size fits all" policies.

Moves to abolish the EC have already started:

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/307359-the-electoral-college-has-to-go-heres-how-we-do-it

" National Popular Vote, has already been adopted by 10 Democratic states: California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. Under this system, states agree in advance to give their electoral votes to whoever wins the most popular votes nationwide, but the reform will not take effect until all of the participating states together have at least 270 electoral votes, a majority of the nation’s total. "