RugbyRebels

Dollars received per state per $1 contributed. California is a net contributor to the Feds. Lot of very Republican states at the top of this list.

It would be interesting to see also a breakdown of state-by-state tax breaks for dying primary industries, like coal, and contrast this with the welfare burden. Then we have health costs for tweakers in the small towns, etc etc.


Who knew doing an economy could be so complicated? Tax cuts will trickle down. Any major problems, I'll be at the golf course.

Coco wrote:I am not opposed to social welfare... what I do oppose is the welfare (using that to include everything) system giving benefits to people that are scamming the system. Also, here in California, it is very hard, if possible at all, to receive one part of the welfare system without getting all of it even if you dont need all of it. Wasteful to the maximum degree. Needs to be more accountability. Recipients can use their EBTcard in casinos, fast food restaurants, and can even get cash to spend on whatever untracked. Part of accountability is making sure the money is getting spent on food, and necessities. Dont even get me started on WIC and women that keep battling out babies they can't take care of. That is just scratching the surface.

An opinion article but very relevant:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

So your biggest issue is people getting a free ride off other people's backs?

That's a common theme and, for me, one of the biggest failures of socialist parties: they do nothing to assuage these fears.

Buggaluggs wrote:Dollars received per state per $1 contributed. California is a net contributor to the Feds. Lot of very Republican states at the top of this list.

Some states have no state tax... some have more seniors taking SS benefits.. some have no estate tax.. some have larger areas of federal land and the list goes on. It varies.

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:I am not opposed to social welfare... what I do oppose is the welfare (using that to include everything) system giving benefits to people that are scamming the system. Also, here in California, it is very hard, if possible at all, to receive one part of the welfare system without getting all of it even if you dont need all of it. Wasteful to the maximum degree. Needs to be more accountability. Recipients can use their EBTcard in casinos, fast food restaurants, and can even get cash to spend on whatever untracked. Part of accountability is making sure the money is getting spent on food, and necessities. Dont even get me started on WIC and women that keep battling out babies they can't take care of. That is just scratching the surface.

An opinion article but very relevant:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

So your biggest issue is people getting a free ride off other people's backs?

That's a common theme and, for me, one of the biggest failures of socialist parties: they do nothing to assuage these fears.

Some people truly need it. Some do not. I have a problem with the "no accountability".

Considering the push back on even the mildest social reforms that Obama tried to bring in (Obamacare was crippled before birth by republican amendments) I doubt you will ever have much to worry about.

The have been few politicians in America who have actually been socialists. Huey Long springs to mind. Your more typical right wing activists soon dealt with that issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:I am not opposed to social welfare... what I do oppose is the welfare (using that to include everything) system giving benefits to people that are scamming the system. Also, here in California, it is very hard, if possible at all, to receive one part of the welfare system without getting all of it even if you dont need all of it. Wasteful to the maximum degree. Needs to be more accountability. Recipients can use their EBTcard in casinos, fast food restaurants, and can even get cash to spend on whatever untracked. Part of accountability is making sure the money is getting spent on food, and necessities. Dont even get me started on WIC and women that keep battling out babies they can't take care of. That is just scratching the surface.

An opinion article but very relevant:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

So your biggest issue is people getting a free ride off other people's backs?

That's a common theme and, for me, one of the biggest failures of socialist parties: they do nothing to assuage these fears.

Some people truly need it. Some do not. I have a problem with the "no accountability".

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:I am not opposed to social welfare... what I do oppose is the welfare (using that to include everything) system giving benefits to people that are scamming the system. Also, here in California, it is very hard, if possible at all, to receive one part of the welfare system without getting all of it even if you dont need all of it. Wasteful to the maximum degree. Needs to be more accountability. Recipients can use their EBTcard in casinos, fast food restaurants, and can even get cash to spend on whatever untracked. Part of accountability is making sure the money is getting spent on food, and necessities. Dont even get me started on WIC and women that keep battling out babies they can't take care of. That is just scratching the surface.

An opinion article but very relevant:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

So your biggest issue is people getting a free ride off other people's backs?

That's a common theme and, for me, one of the biggest failures of socialist parties: they do nothing to assuage these fears.

Some people truly need it. Some do not. I have a problem with the "no accountability".

I don't know the exact situation over there, but in the UK when I was studying, the problem was that strict means testing ended up costing more than simply letting them have it.

The fact is, in absolute numbers, it's not worth fighting over. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. I, personally, would be far more worried about corporate welfare, which amounts to a much larger sum.

Have you ever thought about where you heard that narrative?

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:
So your biggest issue is people getting a free ride off other people's backs?

That's a common theme and, for me, one of the biggest failures of socialist parties: they do nothing to assuage these fears.

Some people truly need it. Some do not. I have a problem with the "no accountability".

I don't know the exact situation over there, but in the UK when I was studying, the problem was that strict means testing ended up costing more than simply letting them have it.

The fact is, in absolute numbers, it's not worth fighting over. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. I, personally, would be far more worried about corporate welfare, which amounts to a much larger sum.

Have you ever thought about where you heard that narrative?

Do you feel the same about wealthy OAP’s who receive winter fuel allowance as you do about those claiming benefits they’re not entitled to? I’d guess you’d be happy to means test that regardless of whether it’s a money saver or not.

To say you are only worried about people claiming benefits they don’t need/aren’t eligible for if there is a cost benefit is very right of centre.

I don’t get the it’s only worth x amount and it’s therefore not worth worrying about argument. That glosses over both fraud and ham fisted policies, both of which have repercussions beyond £ signs. For example, Osborne managed to effectively use benefit fraud as an election winning tactic. This was because, regardless of the £££ involved, it’s an emotive subject. Show that fraud is as close to zero as possible and people are far more likely to vote for tax rises. Winter fuel allowances and above inflation/earnings pension rises for the wealthy, along with house prices, are the keys drivers to the current disharmony between baby boomers and millenials.

Regardless of all of the above, if the Govt systems weren’t stuck in the age of the abacus we could means test as much as we liked and still save money. But that really is pie in the sky.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Coco wrote:
Some people truly need it. Some do not. I have a problem with the "no accountability".

I don't know the exact situation over there, but in the UK when I was studying, the problem was that strict means testing ended up costing more than simply letting them have it.

The fact is, in absolute numbers, it's not worth fighting over. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. I, personally, would be far more worried about corporate welfare, which amounts to a much larger sum.

Have you ever thought about where you heard that narrative?

Do you feel the same about wealthy OAP’s who receive winter fuel allowance as you do about those claiming benefits they’re not entitled to? I’d guess you’d be happy to means test that regardless of whether it’s a money saver or not.

To say you are only worried about people claiming benefits they don’t need/aren’t eligible for if there is a cost benefit is very right of centre.

I don’t get the it’s only worth x amount and it’s therefore not worth worrying about argument. That glosses over both fraud and ham fisted policies, both of which have repercussions beyond £ signs. For example, Osborne managed to effectively use benefit fraud as an election winning tactic. This was because, regardless of the £££ involved, it’s an emotive subject. Show that fraud is as close to zero as possible and people are far more likely to vote for tax rises. Winter fuel allowances and above inflation/earnings pension rises for the wealthy, along with house prices, are the keys drivers to the current disharmony between baby boomers and millenials.

Regardless of all of the above, if the Govt systems weren’t stuck in the age of the abacus we could means test as much as we liked and still save money. But that really is pie in the sky.

Osbourne managed to use it as an effective tactic because Labour were so inept at highlighting the fallacy in an effective way.

On the means testing: if one person can process 10,000 claims, you're going to end up paying more than half of what you recouped in wages, costs and so on. And then you'd get stick for spending £3 million a year on little Hitlers denying poor Cathy her £37.50 a week.

It's a no-win situation for any government with the way the media works nowadays.

Oh, and I think the key drivers to the disharmony are more about ideals and how you live your life than politics and economics, tbh. It's a far bigger sociological issue than it is an economic one, even though the economy definitely plays it's part.

I'm more concerned with the radicalization of the conservatives into what are often pretty extreme views, perpetuated by a media that doesn't have enough oversight.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
I don't know the exact situation over there, but in the UK when I was studying, the problem was that strict means testing ended up costing more than simply letting them have it.

The fact is, in absolute numbers, it's not worth fighting over. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. I, personally, would be far more worried about corporate welfare, which amounts to a much larger sum.

Have you ever thought about where you heard that narrative?

Do you feel the same about wealthy OAP’s who receive winter fuel allowance as you do about those claiming benefits they’re not entitled to? I’d guess you’d be happy to means test that regardless of whether it’s a money saver or not.

To say you are only worried about people claiming benefits they don’t need/aren’t eligible for if there is a cost benefit is very right of centre.

I don’t get the it’s only worth x amount and it’s therefore not worth worrying about argument. That glosses over both fraud and ham fisted policies, both of which have repercussions beyond £ signs. For example, Osborne managed to effectively use benefit fraud as an election winning tactic. This was because, regardless of the £££ involved, it’s an emotive subject. Show that fraud is as close to zero as possible and people are far more likely to vote for tax rises. Winter fuel allowances and above inflation/earnings pension rises for the wealthy, along with house prices, are the keys drivers to the current disharmony between baby boomers and millenials.

Regardless of all of the above, if the Govt systems weren’t stuck in the age of the abacus we could means test as much as we liked and still save money. But that really is pie in the sky.

Osbourne managed to use it as an effective tactic because Labour were so inept at highlighting the fallacy in an effective way.

On the means testing: if one person can process 10,000 claims, you're going to end up paying more than half of what you recouped in wages, costs and so on. And then you'd get stick for spending £3 million a year on little Hitlers denying poor Cathy her £37.50 a week.

It's a no-win situation for any government with the way the media works nowadays.

Oh, and I think the key drivers to the disharmony are more about ideals and how you live your life than politics and economics, tbh. It's a far bigger sociological issue than it is an economic one, even though the economy definitely plays it's part.

I'm more concerned with the radicalization of the conservatives into what are often pretty extreme views, perpetuated by a media that doesn't have enough oversight.

It was nothing to do with Labour being inept. People see it as theft, which is what benefit fraud is. It’s like telling someone who has had their house broken into it doesn’t matter as the burgular only got away with £20. The person doesn’t might be relieved that it’s a small amount of ££££ but they still care that they’re the victim of theft. There are numerous studies that show lowering benefit fraud increases people’s willingness to pay taxes.

I’m not arguing that means testing isn’t a loss leader, I’m just saying it’s more than about pound signs. Also, most people are happy for the Govt to spend more money than they recoup if they believe it is catching fraudsters. Just as more people don’t see the police as a money saving device but are still happy to fund them.

There is numerous research that the disharmony from the millenials towards the baby boomers is that the baby boomers wealth, ie property, and state income/benefits have proportionally risen whilst the baby boomers are now looking at worse life chances in those areas. Sociological issues between generations have been around for ever but we now have political parties actively looking at policies to redress the economic imbalance.

Oversight of the media is a wholly different topic and another one we’d fundamentally disagree on. Unless by ‘media’ you mean social media rather than traditional journalism.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Do you feel the same about wealthy OAP’s who receive winter fuel allowance as you do about those claiming benefits they’re not entitled to? I’d guess you’d be happy to means test that regardless of whether it’s a money saver or not.

To say you are only worried about people claiming benefits they don’t need/aren’t eligible for if there is a cost benefit is very right of centre.

I don’t get the it’s only worth x amount and it’s therefore not worth worrying about argument. That glosses over both fraud and ham fisted policies, both of which have repercussions beyond £ signs. For example, Osborne managed to effectively use benefit fraud as an election winning tactic. This was because, regardless of the £££ involved, it’s an emotive subject. Show that fraud is as close to zero as possible and people are far more likely to vote for tax rises. Winter fuel allowances and above inflation/earnings pension rises for the wealthy, along with house prices, are the keys drivers to the current disharmony between baby boomers and millenials.

Regardless of all of the above, if the Govt systems weren’t stuck in the age of the abacus we could means test as much as we liked and still save money. But that really is pie in the sky.

Osbourne managed to use it as an effective tactic because Labour were so inept at highlighting the fallacy in an effective way.

On the means testing: if one person can process 10,000 claims, you're going to end up paying more than half of what you recouped in wages, costs and so on. And then you'd get stick for spending £3 million a year on little Hitlers denying poor Cathy her £37.50 a week.

It's a no-win situation for any government with the way the media works nowadays.

Oh, and I think the key drivers to the disharmony are more about ideals and how you live your life than politics and economics, tbh. It's a far bigger sociological issue than it is an economic one, even though the economy definitely plays it's part.

I'm more concerned with the radicalization of the conservatives into what are often pretty extreme views, perpetuated by a media that doesn't have enough oversight.

It was nothing to do with Labour being inept. People see it as theft, which is what benefit fraud is. It’s like telling someone who has had their house broken into it doesn’t matter as the burgular only got away with £20. The person doesn’t might be relieved that it’s a small amount of ££££ but they still care that they’re the victim of theft. There are numerous studies that show lowering benefit fraud increases people’s willingness to pay taxes.

I’m not arguing that means testing isn’t a loss leader, I’m just saying it’s more than about pound signs. Also, most people are happy for the Govt to spend more money than they recoup if they believe it is catching fraudsters. Just as more people don’t see the police as a money saving device but are still happy to fund them.

There is numerous research that the disharmony from the millenials towards the baby boomers is that the baby boomers wealth, ie property, and state income/benefits have proportionally risen whilst the baby boomers are now looking at worse life chances in those areas. Sociological issues between generations have been around for ever but we now have political parties actively looking at policies to redress the economic imbalance.

Oversight of the media is a wholly different topic and another one we’d fundamentally disagree on. Unless by ‘media’ you mean social media rather than traditional journalism.

I mean all media, which means regulating Facebook as a media company, for instance.

There should be more done against extremist headlines that simply lie or twist the truth so much as to present a completely different reality.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Osbourne managed to use it as an effective tactic because Labour were so inept at highlighting the fallacy in an effective way.

On the means testing: if one person can process 10,000 claims, you're going to end up paying more than half of what you recouped in wages, costs and so on. And then you'd get stick for spending £3 million a year on little Hitlers denying poor Cathy her £37.50 a week.

It's a no-win situation for any government with the way the media works nowadays.

Oh, and I think the key drivers to the disharmony are more about ideals and how you live your life than politics and economics, tbh. It's a far bigger sociological issue than it is an economic one, even though the economy definitely plays it's part.

I'm more concerned with the radicalization of the conservatives into what are often pretty extreme views, perpetuated by a media that doesn't have enough oversight.

It was nothing to do with Labour being inept. People see it as theft, which is what benefit fraud is. It’s like telling someone who has had their house broken into it doesn’t matter as the burgular only got away with £20. The person doesn’t might be relieved that it’s a small amount of ££££ but they still care that they’re the victim of theft. There are numerous studies that show lowering benefit fraud increases people’s willingness to pay taxes.

I’m not arguing that means testing isn’t a loss leader, I’m just saying it’s more than about pound signs. Also, most people are happy for the Govt to spend more money than they recoup if they believe it is catching fraudsters. Just as more people don’t see the police as a money saving device but are still happy to fund them.

There is numerous research that the disharmony from the millenials towards the baby boomers is that the baby boomers wealth, ie property, and state income/benefits have proportionally risen whilst the baby boomers are now looking at worse life chances in those areas. Sociological issues between generations have been around for ever but we now have political parties actively looking at policies to redress the economic imbalance.

Oversight of the media is a wholly different topic and another one we’d fundamentally disagree on. Unless by ‘media’ you mean social media rather than traditional journalism.

I mean all media, which means regulating Facebook as a media company, for instance.

There should be more done against extremist headlines that simply lie or twist the truth so much as to present a completely different reality.

Ok. So may be we won’t fundamentally disagree on that one! I think more oversight is required but nothing as stringent as what is on the table at the moment/recently. Though, it was worth it to watch Miliband’s audition for the RSC.
I’m a strong believer in the freedom of the press, but that freedom comes with responsibilities and there are certain publications that aren’t living up to those responsibilities.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It was nothing to do with Labour being inept. People see it as theft, which is what benefit fraud is. It’s like telling someone who has had their house broken into it doesn’t matter as the burgular only got away with £20. The person doesn’t might be relieved that it’s a small amount of ££££ but they still care that they’re the victim of theft. There are numerous studies that show lowering benefit fraud increases people’s willingness to pay taxes.

I’m not arguing that means testing isn’t a loss leader, I’m just saying it’s more than about pound signs. Also, most people are happy for the Govt to spend more money than they recoup if they believe it is catching fraudsters. Just as more people don’t see the police as a money saving device but are still happy to fund them.

There is numerous research that the disharmony from the millenials towards the baby boomers is that the baby boomers wealth, ie property, and state income/benefits have proportionally risen whilst the baby boomers are now looking at worse life chances in those areas. Sociological issues between generations have been around for ever but we now have political parties actively looking at policies to redress the economic imbalance.

Oversight of the media is a wholly different topic and another one we’d fundamentally disagree on. Unless by ‘media’ you mean social media rather than traditional journalism.

I mean all media, which means regulating Facebook as a media company, for instance.

There should be more done against extremist headlines that simply lie or twist the truth so much as to present a completely different reality.

Ok. So may be we won’t fundamentally disagree on that one! I think more oversight is required but nothing as stringent as what is on the table at the moment/recently. Though, it was worth it to watch Miliband’s audition for the RSC.
I’m a strong believer in the freedom of the press, but that freedom comes with responsibilities and there are certain publications that aren’t living up to those responsibilities.

That I can agree with.

But it's been going on for years. When I was at university, we studied the "ethics" and controls each newsroom had and by far the most stringent for fact checking (at the time) was Al-Jazeera. Sure, they were new back then, but still...

Wait a damn minute... do I come off to you as being a right wing extremist?

Regarding media... it is spun both ways and neither narrative is exclusively extreme at times.

Mellsblue, you explained it clearer than I could ever hope to, so thank you Sir.

I wasn't intending this to morph into a debate about the rights or wrongs of Coco's political leanings. Was more interested in just what it would take for a conservative leaning American, and especially a conservative leaning American woman, to walk away from Trump in disgust. Regardless of whether I agree with your political leanings Coco, you seem mostly reasonable, intelligent, sane. How can a person with those basic attributes still back Trump?

Most working americans are pissed off at the rising inequality that eats away at their resources. Bailing out banks and the predation of state and federal resources by entities like Goldman Sachs are two examples of the fundamentals of this discontent. Unfortunately, the powers that be on the "right" side of the political spectrum seize upon anecdote and conspiracy to whip up fury against the ugliest arguments for why inequality exists. This border security and military fetish justified on the basis of a fear of non-white people invading a caucasian utopia distracts from the fact that the current leadership is being played at every turn by the very people that promote the real reason for inequality. The administration is littered with ex-Goldman Sachs employees at the highest levels of government and they have successfully steered this feckless president towards a legislative path that is the easiest route to raiding the public purse. An absurd tax policy that shits on the working and middle class, a further muddying of the definition of health coverage in an absurd already out of control for-profit health system, and the ridiculously short sighted dysregulation of environmental protections. Despite all the promises of standing up to the the "elite", this leader has caved in like a little bitch at every opportunity to confront the predatory practices of this very group of people. His profound ignorance and extreme cowardice allows these practices to accelerate unchecked. The puppet masters just prod his entrenched racism to wind up his mechanism and spew forth bile that is amplified by a seriously comprehensive social media campaign. He is a figurehead, utterly irrelevant to the actual logistics of legislation and at some point soon the professional narrative has to confront the absurdity of this situation and stop focussing on anecdote and social media nonsense.

J Dory wrote:I wasn't intending this to morph into a debate about the rights or wrongs of Coco's political leanings. Was more interested in just what it would take for a conservative leaning American, and especially a conservative leaning American woman, to walk away from Trump in disgust. Regardless of whether I agree with your political leanings Coco, you seem mostly reasonable, intelligent, sane. How can a person with those basic attributes still back Trump?

She's explained that - she's lived thru seeing California being ruined by Democrats and as a consequence turned to the Republicans. Simples, and really quite understandable.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

J Dory wrote:I wasn't intending this to morph into a debate about the rights or wrongs of Coco's political leanings. Was more interested in just what it would take for a conservative leaning American, and especially a conservative leaning American woman, to walk away from Trump in disgust. Regardless of whether I agree with your political leanings Coco, you seem mostly reasonable, intelligent, sane. How can a person with those basic attributes still back Trump?

She's explained that - she's lived thru seeing California being ruined by Democrats and as a consequence turned to the Republicans. Simples, and really quite understandable.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

That's not what I'm asking. Voting Republican is one thing, voting Trump is another altogether.

J Dory wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

J Dory wrote:I wasn't intending this to morph into a debate about the rights or wrongs of Coco's political leanings. Was more interested in just what it would take for a conservative leaning American, and especially a conservative leaning American woman, to walk away from Trump in disgust. Regardless of whether I agree with your political leanings Coco, you seem mostly reasonable, intelligent, sane. How can a person with those basic attributes still back Trump?

She's explained that - she's lived thru seeing California being ruined by Democrats and as a consequence turned to the Republicans. Simples, and really quite understandable.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

That's not what I'm asking. Voting Republican is one thing, voting Trump is another altogether.

To be quite honest J Dory, I dont necessarily like or dislike him. His antics and orange skin are just a distraction from what his policies are doing for California so far. My husband and I, my father, many of my cousins, and friends are in the construction and/or raw land development industry. By the time the 2016 election rolled around, we all had endured 7+ years of stagnation in work, the disappearing California economy, and ARB regulations that were strangling the industry beyond comprehension. That, coupled with losing our health insurance due to Obamacare, and being unable to purchase a new policy. We live 30 mins from and own land at the border of Mexico.
I have a first hand understanding of why a barrier of some sort would be beneficial to curtail trafficking drugs, weapons, and children. The illegal immigration part of it is not my top priority. It is dangerous at the border. Anyway, I can honestly say I feel I made the right choice when I voted the way I did and I make no apologies for my reasoning. Our economy is booming, work is going crazy and it's a good start.

Anyone and everyone can sit in their armchairs and cast down opinions or personal thoughts about him. The way I see it, if you aren't living here, and actually living it, you really have no idea. Everyone's opinions have merit, but to be honest... anyone that would have chosen Hillary or Bernie over Trump is out of touch with reality to me.

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:She's explained that - she's lived thru seeing California being ruined by Democrats and as a consequence turned to the Republicans. Simples, and really quite understandable.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

That's not what I'm asking. Voting Republican is one thing, voting Trump is another altogether.

To be quite honest J Dory, I dont necessarily like or dislike him. His antics and orange skin are just a distraction from what his policies are doing for California so far. My husband and I, my father, many of my cousins, and friends are in the construction and/or raw land development industry. By the time the 2016 election rolled around, we all had endured 7+ years of stagnation in work, the disappearing California economy, and ARB regulations that were strangling the industry beyond comprehension. That, coupled with losing our health insurance due to Obamacare, and being unable to purchase a new policy. We live 30 mins from and own land at the border of Mexico.
I have a first hand understanding of why a barrier of some sort would be beneficial to curtail trafficking drugs, weapons, and children. The illegal immigration part of it is not my top priority. It is dangerous at the border. Anyway, I can honestly say I feel I made the right choice when I voted the way I did and I make no apologies for my reasoning. Our economy is booming, work is going crazy and it's a good start.

Anyone and everyone can sit in their armchairs and cast down opinions or personal thoughts about him. The way I see it, if you aren't living here, and actually living it, you really have no idea. Everyone's opinions have merit, but to be honest... anyone that would have chosen Hillary or Bernie over Trump is out of touch with reality to me.

I'm not asking you to defend your choice Coco, it was more a question of whether there was a tipping point of bad behavior/hair from Trump that would be enough to make you vote differently going forward. Sounds like you're willing to put up with Trump in exchange for what you see as good policy that is heading the country in the right direction. I suspect you are not alone.

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:
That's not what I'm asking. Voting Republican is one thing, voting Trump is another altogether.

To be quite honest J Dory, I dont necessarily like or dislike him. His antics and orange skin are just a distraction from what his policies are doing for California so far. My husband and I, my father, many of my cousins, and friends are in the construction and/or raw land development industry. By the time the 2016 election rolled around, we all had endured 7+ years of stagnation in work, the disappearing California economy, and ARB regulations that were strangling the industry beyond comprehension. That, coupled with losing our health insurance due to Obamacare, and being unable to purchase a new policy. We live 30 mins from and own land at the border of Mexico.
I have a first hand understanding of why a barrier of some sort would be beneficial to curtail trafficking drugs, weapons, and children. The illegal immigration part of it is not my top priority. It is dangerous at the border. Anyway, I can honestly say I feel I made the right choice when I voted the way I did and I make no apologies for my reasoning. Our economy is booming, work is going crazy and it's a good start.

Anyone and everyone can sit in their armchairs and cast down opinions or personal thoughts about him. The way I see it, if you aren't living here, and actually living it, you really have no idea. Everyone's opinions have merit, but to be honest... anyone that would have chosen Hillary or Bernie over Trump is out of touch with reality to me.

I'm not asking you to defend your choice Coco, it was more a question of whether there was a tipping point of bad behavior/hair from Trump that would be enough to make you vote differently going forward. Sounds like you're willing to put up with Trump in exchange for what you see as good policy that is heading the country in the right direction. I suspect you are not alone.

I am not alone. I know what you meant, and as I said, his orange skin and yellow hair are not who he is.
People that voted for him were able to look beyond all of the surface crap, petty distractions, rumors, and accusations. They decided his ideals for the most part could possibly steer things in another direction and felt he was worth a try. If Mickey Mouse ran under the same policy changes, Dem or Repub, I would have voted for Mickey Mouse. The person matters not, the outcome does. That is all I meant.

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:
To be quite honest J Dory, I dont necessarily like or dislike him. His antics and orange skin are just a distraction from what his policies are doing for California so far. My husband and I, my father, many of my cousins, and friends are in the construction and/or raw land development industry. By the time the 2016 election rolled around, we all had endured 7+ years of stagnation in work, the disappearing California economy, and ARB regulations that were strangling the industry beyond comprehension. That, coupled with losing our health insurance due to Obamacare, and being unable to purchase a new policy. We live 30 mins from and own land at the border of Mexico.
I have a first hand understanding of why a barrier of some sort would be beneficial to curtail trafficking drugs, weapons, and children. The illegal immigration part of it is not my top priority. It is dangerous at the border. Anyway, I can honestly say I feel I made the right choice when I voted the way I did and I make no apologies for my reasoning. Our economy is booming, work is going crazy and it's a good start.

Anyone and everyone can sit in their armchairs and cast down opinions or personal thoughts about him. The way I see it, if you aren't living here, and actually living it, you really have no idea. Everyone's opinions have merit, but to be honest... anyone that would have chosen Hillary or Bernie over Trump is out of touch with reality to me.

I'm not asking you to defend your choice Coco, it was more a question of whether there was a tipping point of bad behavior/hair from Trump that would be enough to make you vote differently going forward. Sounds like you're willing to put up with Trump in exchange for what you see as good policy that is heading the country in the right direction. I suspect you are not alone.

I am not alone. I know what you meant, and as I said, his orange skin and yellow hair are not who he is.
People that voted for him were able to look beyond all of the surface crap, petty distractions, rumors, and accusations. They decided his ideals for the most part could possibly steer things in another direction and felt he was worth a try. If Mickey Mouse ran under the same policy changes, Dem or Repub, I would have voted for Mickey Mouse. The person matters not, the outcome does. That is all I meant.

Ahh, well now we're really parting ways. Orange skin and yellow hair don't matter. It's all the other shit that I thought would matter. The man you see is not the same stupid, racist, narcissistic, misogynistic money grabbing, adoration craving pig of a man that I see I guess. I thought you were ok with him despite all that because you felt he was pushing the country in the right direction, but it sounds like you actually like him.

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:
I'm not asking you to defend your choice Coco, it was more a question of whether there was a tipping point of bad behavior/hair from Trump that would be enough to make you vote differently going forward. Sounds like you're willing to put up with Trump in exchange for what you see as good policy that is heading the country in the right direction. I suspect you are not alone.

I am not alone. I know what you meant, and as I said, his orange skin and yellow hair are not who he is.
People that voted for him were able to look beyond all of the surface crap, petty distractions, rumors, and accusations. They decided his ideals for the most part could possibly steer things in another direction and felt he was worth a try. If Mickey Mouse ran under the same policy changes, Dem or Repub, I would have voted for Mickey Mouse. The person matters not, the outcome does. That is all I meant.

Ahh, well now we're really parting ways. Orange skin and yellow hair don't matter. It's all the other shit that I thought would matter. The man you see is not the same stupid, racist, narcissistic, misogynistic money grabbing, adoration craving pig of a man that I see I guess. I thought you were ok with him despite all that because you felt he was pushing the country in the right direction, but it sounds like you actually like him.

Does it? I thought I made myself clear, but it seems you can't get past the fact that his personality traits aren't the be all end all for most people living in the depths of reality. He is a tool, but that tool is moving my corner of the country in the right direction so far. How much more clear can I be?

Now let's just kiss and make up already.

She doesn't, no one possibly can. However, the California economy is greater than Great Britain on the scale of things, and I fail to see how that metric is compatible with the definition of stagnation. ARB regulation started in the late '60's in an attempt to curb the very real pollution problems in the state, which cost a truckload (pun) in health cost down the road. "Obamacare", or the Affordable Healthcare Act, while bitching out on a single payer system, has reduced the financial burden of uninsured to reduce the budget deficit significantly. I ended up with a slightly increased insurance cost that hit my paycheck, but in no way shape or form did the act prevent me from purchasing a new policy. The ACA limits options for short term insurance packages that do not comply with mandated coverage requirements, but does not prevent access to a legitimate policy. It forbids the option of not having insurance, which I assume is the point of the critical narrative. I am not going to comment on personal experience of drug and weapon trafficking other than to say a physical barrier is the least sophisticated option that could possibly be proposed and keep a straight face. The economy is experiencing the euphoric effects of short term deregulation, but history tells us, time and time again, that this is unsustainable. Speculation is being traded like candy at the moment, but when debt is called in, it is not hedge fund managers that will cover the shortfall. Just ask all the Atlantic city contractors that got fucked by Trump when he couldn't honour his debt for his preposterous casino jolly.

Porky I think that is great that your health insurance only went up slightly. That is not the case in this state, unfortunately. My insurance company left and residents here were left with a handful of cookie cutter options that are, in my case, twice+ my mortgage cost monthly, and will not even begin to pay out until I have paid $12,750.00 in deductibles first. That comes to roughly $3,500.00 per month just to have insurance, and another $12,750.00 in out of pocket costs for care before insurance will kick in. May be pocket change to you but for us middle class people it is a large chunk of income. To rub salt into the wound, the feds ding me for $1-2k at tax time for not having it. I wish I could purchase insurance in another state that is more reasonable but it is not possible.