If Democrats care so much about the poor, then explain Los Angeles

^But once again, isn't this a tacit admission that the Democrats are the real party of the rich? By your own admission here, it's the blue states who have most of the money. Additionally, the question must be asked; if poor people live more comfortably in red states because they don't need as much money to live there, then how poor are they really?

Which is all of recent history.

Sorry, but that's not true. It was the influence of people like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Social_Research - infiltrating the system via methods like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals - that eventually turned Hollywood into what it is today.

It's not a coincidence that Hollywood turned left around the same time organizations like the SDS began popping up on college campuses.

And that's why the PMRC was founded by conservative Republican Tipper Gore, right?

 

I was not criticizing or blaming capitalism, but disagreeing with your assertion that political idalogy has al ot to do with how Calfironia cost of living is derived. You have two states, each with its unique history and culture, but also share a common culture and history with Mexico and the Union. However, that does not negate the fact that land is at a higher premium in California than it is in Texas. And land premiums is why California has a higher cost of living than Texas.

The speicial tax districts are primarily funded by sales taxes or property taxes. Since these taxes are regressive, they can affect you more so as a poor person than someone who has wealth.

then you do not understand the argument. In California, half of its land cannot be used for whatever reason, which does not include government ownershuip or use of said land. That is not the case in Texas where land is more abundant. It has nothing to do in where you live, but how each state was formed.

We have benefits and consequences of both. Since if is generally required to have a vehicle to go from point A to point B, that is an added burder to the poor here in Texas whereas it is not a burdern with their public transportation. it is als owhy Texas has a higher percentage of drivers who do not have auto insurance than in Cafifornia.

the question of which party is for the poor or the rich has nothing to do with where they live. It has to do with whether the party believes in hleping that demographic within the political spectrum. Both parties claim to help the poor, yet both parites have different views on how to help the poor.

what I was trying to get you to see is that despite all of your rhetoric that more poor poeple live in the so called red states or that it is cheaper to live in red states than in blude states is not an accurate way of discerning which party is better for the poor.

For the Democratic side, at least under the banner of the Trumans, Johnson, and B. Clinton style Democrats, the party is about protecting the most ernable groups from the majority. And that is why the Dems have a better image on the side of the poor. On the other side, namely the Tea Party, this group says by eliminating programs that help the poor such as student loans, medicaid, and other welfare programs that are to assit the poor in those opportunities. This is different from the Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush Sr Republicans who at least understood the role of the programs, but at least tried to make them more efficient at the task at hand. For instancce, the Thousand Points of Light by George bush was an excellent idea at infusing government with NGO's to tackle the problem of the poor. Even with Reagan and B. Clinton made such welfare programs where it was trying to get those who are on welfare off by probiding opportunities for them to change their economic status. But you do not have that with the Tea Party and that is the problem.

Assuming everything else is rqual, the savings will come in two areas, federal tax deductions on new car purchases and vehicle registration fees. In California, you are more likely to be able to itemize than in Texas if you use the sales tax method on said deductions. And inf California, part of the calculation for the vehicle registration fee is based in part on the value of the car whereas in Texas it is strictly on the tonnage, make, and model of the car only. And that is not tax deductible.

Taxation is not the barometer on whether a program for the poor succeeds or not. However, taxation is a reliable and constant source of funding than the annual or semi annual concpt of begging tor that money on TV or other methods.

No it does not. The middle class is shrinking, both in California and in Texas. The reasons why vary from state to state, but the fact is that this economic class is shrinking.

i am a 9th generation Texan on my father's side and a 7th generation Texan on my Mothers sdie. Football is a religion in Texas, espeically on Friday nights. Been there, done that. Participated in the Gucchi Bowl, that is Churchill vs Clark. Odessa Permiman vs Midland Lee, and a few other high school rivaries. Even been to the 6 man football tournament in a place called Hico, Texas off state Highway 6 with rivaleries simialr to the larger 5A like Churchill vs Clark. In additon, Hispanic population has nothing to do with how this state views football. San Antonio, for instance, has a greater population of Hispanics, percentage wise, than Houston does and yet Football is king here. It is also king in Houstoan with some of their rivalaries.

 

I have no idea where you got the bizarre notion that those two links have anything to do with why Hollywood is predominantly Democratic today. The history of Hollywood's connection to Washington DC is well documented, as is its war against censorship, and in my 30 years experience in Hollywood which includes working in the entertainment industry, I have never heard of the ISR having any influence in any political discussions.

 

Entitlements and welfare is their answer.

Massachusetts is very similar to what you described. Very expensive to live in. I paid about 250K for my house, which in some states would enable me to live in a luxurious mansion....I have a small, really old Cape. Needed tons of work when we got it...or it would have been more lol.

We've got all the same kinds of taxes here as well. It gets really tough to "Make it in Massachusetts". My wife and I both work ful time.


My neighbor lives in a house almost exactly like mine....but only one of them works. They decided not to get Married because then the "wife" couldnt get the welfare...wic...mass health etc etc.
In essence, they cannot afford to live here...But I'm subsidizing them along with the other residents in town/state.


Entitlements Unifier. Thats what they'll tell you, if they're honest.

 

Wow, talk about dredging up ancient history.

The PMRC was started by four wives of political leaders in Washington DC back in 1985, the two most prominent wives being Tipper Gore (way before Al Gore and Clinton knew each other) and Susan Baker wife of James Baker, who was a Republican. So to try and spin this as some form of partisan move is rather silly.

There was indeed push back from the music industry in regards to this, but as it turned out it the parental advisory label wound up having the exact opposite effect that the PMRC intended. It actually increased sales! Nothing sells better than forbidden fruit.

 

Then don't take my word for it. Feel free to do your own research on those people and the influence that they've had on western culture over the course of the last 50 years. You might be surprised at what you find.

Sorry, but I don't believe you've ever worked in the entertainment industry. Would you like to show me your credentials?

You were the one who brought up the past. The 80s are a lot more recent than the 60s.

Then wasn't it just as silly when you tried to do the same thing a couple of posts ago? It was you who made the partisan allegation that conservatives were pushing censorship while you completely ignored the fact that there were Democrats like Tipper Gore who were spearheading the movement while conservatives like Frank Zappa were fighting against it.

 

By giving millions of Illegal aliens amnesty allows them to get all entitlements & all the free bees. That means that all those poor and Afro Americans that have been getting those entitlements, free phones, Obama money, etc., will have to give up at least part or half of them. I don't think that will go over to well.But Obama will want them to pay their fair share.

 

Well the next president is almost certainly going to be a Republican and so leftwingers and the left-tilted Mainstream Media will simply blame the new sitting president from day one for the downside effects of ALL of Barack Obama's pen and phone executive orders crudola . . . and as per usual the low-information voters will swallow it whole and unexamined.

 

Yep, Texas has the greatest boom economy of the nation under a conservative governor and working people KNOW that if they can't make it working for wages in their crud-hole Dem Party controlled state then the thing to do is move down to Texas where they CAN find plenty of work and can live a decent lifestyle off the results of their own proud labor. The only downside is that they will have to adjust to actually and effectively being free citizens rather than the downtrodden and hyper-controlled poor.

 

Try not to view everything through ideologically-biased eyes.

Americans are free to live where they can afford to live, regardless of their politics.

The more desirable places to live cost more because the law of supply and demand applies.

That's a basic, free-market concept.

Wealthier folks are able to live where they live largely because their better educations allow them to earn more.

The poor can be found everywhere.

 

Leftwingers don't SEE the leftwing wealthy. Their eyes cross and their minds go blank on the issue. Barack Obama is a one percenter and I fluking guaranteeeeeeeeeeee that once he returns to regular life he will NOT be dedicating his life and a significant portion of his wealth to charities and charity work like say . . . Jimmy Carter has done. Will our leftwingers be the least bit bothered about that? Not on your life!

 

Everything you wrote was nothing more than kneejerk political propaganda screed. No thought need apply. Whenever I do the same thing it's always somewhat tongue-in-cheek . . . but leftwingers really do seem to mean it . . . which makes all too many of them intellectually challenged when it comes to HOW politics and ideology tends to translate into real world results. That's a big part of the reason why Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media was able to con just enough of them to turn away from Hillary Clinton in 2008 and vote for a fellow instead with zero meaningful national level experience. You have to be able to separate kneejerk political propaganda from genuine THOUGHT when it really matters . . . and it does matter.

 

did the "terminator" not bring all he promised to your state?

 

I agree. So what do you think -- why are Los Angeles and New York such expensive places to live?

 

Because policy can only so go far in influencing the real estate market. Like I said, this isn't really a Democrat/Republican issue. Urban centers are always going to have high levels of poverty because there are more jobs in cities and people move to and stay in the cities to find jobs. Your assumption is that voting Republican would somehow reduce the rental prices in Los Angeles. There's no evidence to support that, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I like that you used "roughly" to qualify a statistic you pulled out of thin air. Also, it's important to note that, while you may associate Los Angeles culturally with the film industry, the city is dominated by the aerospace, petroleum and international trade industries over and above films (even if movies get the most press). Also, you should google "correlation vs. causation" sometime. Everyone recognizes the correlation you're talking about. But the fact that there are poor people in large cities and also that large cities tend to be Democratic does not mean that Democrats are causing people to be poor. Consider the high levels of poverty in rural Republican states. Claiming that poor urban Democrats are poor because they're voting Democrat is like claiming that poor rural Republicans are poor because they're voting Republican. You're missing the complexities of the real estate market and jumping straight for the partisan conclusion if you think that the Democrats are, for some inexplicable reason, refusing to lower rental prices in Los Angeles.

 

Quite honestly I don't care whether or not you believe I worked in the entertainment industry, but I do find it funny that someone who's only come to Hollywood passing through would think he knows its history without even spending time here to absorb it. You're only interested in feeding your own bias, so I will let you carry on with your silly tirade of ignorance.

 

I'm a property tax consultant. Do you really think people in multi million dollar homes in California pay more than their fair share in property taxes. Go ahead and explain. I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion.

 

Facts can wreak havoc with ideological fervour - but only when they are allowed to!

TPs who assiduously ignore Brownback's "Red State Model" are far shrewder than the hapless true believers that attempt to defend it by fraudulent figures.

 

Dude, I started this thread initially to get liberals to either show me something I wasn't seeing or to reconsider their position that wasn't adding up. I didn't want this to degenerate into an empty pissing contest. Perhaps my comment about your credentials was unnecessary. I kind of regretted it after I posted it. Because I don't think it really added anything productive to the discussion. So please disregard that. I apologize. I'm more interested in discussing the nuts and bolts of how the policies affect the living standards of the people.

But my claims about the Frankfurt school's influence on American culture still stand. Like I said, feel free to do your own research. I'm not picking on the entertainment industry here either. The news media and the education system have been just as susceptible to its influence. Because that was the goal of the movement. To infiltrate all of the important pillars of society and corrupt them from within. Most of the people working in these institutions are not even consciously aware of what's been going on around them. Have you ever read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky?

 

This doesn't even make sense. If there are more jobs in cities, then shouldn't there be fewer poor people?

Then why is Texas cheaper than California? That part is not debatable.

Are you denying that it's true?

But you're still just dancing around the issue here. Trying to use the old "dazzle them with bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" routine. Nothing you have said here explains why it's easier to live in Republican states than it is to live in Democrat states? Again, that part is not debatable.

Remember why I started this thread. Because I was genuinely interested in relocating to California. But that will be a very difficult move because of the fact that California is so much more expensive than Texas.

 

And I think many other posters have already addressed your question. I specifically addressed your question in regards to Hollywood because so many conservatives seem to have a large misunderstanding of why Hollywood is predominantly Liberal today.

Apology accepted.

It seems that you are just looking for a very simplified equation, but there are many factors involved in regards to what affects living standards of any geographic area. One of the things that separates California from other states is a heavy emphasis on worker's rights and safety. Generally speaking you are safer working for a company in California than in most other states, however it also has negative affects in encouraging certain industries to move to the state, and even though you yourself may be working in an industry where some of the regulations don't even make sense, your employer still has to enforce them. It is the dilemma of a state with a diverse pool of industries and resources to draw upon.

To be honest, I have never heard of a Alinsky prior to this year. I just looked up his Wikipedia entry and he seems like he was a very devoted individual committed to helping the poor. However, I failed to see what relevance a political activists who died in 1972 has any relevance to today's politics. Since it's only been of recent that this name keeps popping up, I can only assume some right wing rag or pundit has made some reference to him in regards to either Hillary or Obama.

Ah yes! A quick Google search as to why Alinsky's name keeps coming up brings up a Glenn Beck website…figures!

 

No. Being employed doesn't prevent you from being poor, which is why many people are trying to raise the minimum wage. Poor people often have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet, because one job doesn't pay enough. Hence, poor people come to LA because it's easier to find jobs in the city, not because the jobs pay more.

Saying it's not debatable isn't an argument. You're on a political forum. If you don't expect debate, you probably shouldn't waste your time here. Yes, California is more expensive on the whole than Texas, but there are more jobs in California than there are in Texas, and there are pockets of California that are more affordable, just as there are pockets of Texas that are more expensive. Also, you started this thread asking about why Los Angeles is expensive. Now you're saying that you want to know why California is more expensive than Texas. These are two different questions. State economies are fundamentally different and considerably more complex than municipal economies. If you want to debate state economies, you should probably start a new thread.

Yes. You pulled the statistic out of thin air. Are you suggesting that you have the power to psychically conduct political polls?

I responded to a comment that you made about the film industry. If it's not related to the point you're making, don't bring it up.

I don't have to remember because this is an internet forum and your first post is archived. I responded to your questions about Los Angeles, ("If Democrats care so much about the poor, then explain Los Angeles") not the entire state of California. If you want to get into a debate about state economies, you're going to have to weigh in the fact that considerable swaths of California are Republican, that there are Democratic sectors in Texas, that parts of Texas are much more expensive than parts of California, and that the dominant industries in California are considerably more diverse and profitable than the industries that dominate Texas (again, not really a Democratic/Republican thing).
And again, posting a question on a debate forum and then saying it's not debatable is... I don't know what you're doing here, dude, unless you're trolling and enjoy that sort of thing.

 

If Republican policies are so good, then why are the folks in the South still so poor , after voting for Republicans for the past 40 years????, oh and most lack health insurance too???

Folks in California make a helluva lot more money than they do in Mississippi, they can afford higher rent, LOL..

 

Is that what actors like Clooney, Affleck, etc do?

 

Obama is an empty suit and a known liar. Hillary is a bag of blood clots with a Mao Tse-tung pant suit and also a known liar. They both represents the Democrat party. The Democrat party is the plantation party. They treat their voters as victims and use class warfare to get votes. Women are victims, blacks are victims and they keep telling them they can't make it on their own. They scare their voters that the Republicans want to take away their health care, their benefits.