The victims of socialism are voting against it the best way they
can. By getting to hell out of it and letting all the leeches,
parasites and bludgers sink into their own shit..
What's this got to do with NZ???
Its going to happen here too, and the sooner the better. Can't
wait to see all you state worshipping fucking leeches starving
and homeless.
-------------------------------------------
WONDER LAND
Blue-State Pols Are Emptying Their Own States
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
August 29, 2003
The most significant voting bloc in California's famous recall
election isn't Hispanics or angry male Democrats but the people
who were so eager to weigh in that they've already voted--with
their feet.
According to a report out this month from the U.S. Census
Bureau, an astounding 2,204,500 Californians threw in the towel
from 1995 to 2000 and highballed it out of the "Golden State."
The state's net migration figure for the period is minus-
755,536, and would be worse if Latin American immigrants didn't
still drop in for a look.
This is the first time the net migration number for California
has ever gone negative.
We in New York should be so lucky to have a chance to recall our
profligate pols. The Census figures make those of us staying in
the "Empire State" look like the nation's biggest saps: Some
1,600,725 shrewd subjects of Albany's empire saw in the late
1990s that the pols were blowing the revenue surge out the
window and escaped ahead of the recent tax hikes passed to close
the inevitable deficit.
Because so many former New Yorkers understood the meaning of
present-discounted non-value, the state took first place in net
migration loss: minus-874,248. The bureau says New Yorkers fled
to every state in the Union except Nebraska and the District of
Columbia. Don't expect this datum to show up in the welcoming
speeches by George Pataki and Mike Bloomberg when the GOP holds
its weirdly inappropriate convention in Manhattan next year.
If you look down the Census Bureau's coming-and-going column
nearby, the consistent breakdown of Democratic blue-state
population losers and Republican red-state gainers is striking
(there are exceptions; Oregon and Washington state gained, while
Louisiana lost). This may leave the blue states bluer than ever,
but not very pleasant places to live if their most industrious,
motivated citizens are loading up one-way U-Hauls.
It's well known that Arizona and Nevada are growth states, but
the numbers for places generally thought to be mostly desert are
impressive: Arizona's net gain is 316,148; Nevada's is 233,934.
The economies of California, New York and Illinois have been
supported for years by inflows of foreign-born immigrants, and
they still come. But this census shows large net losses even of
recent immigrants in these three blue states. Almost certainly
these are the most motivated, successful new arrivers, who know
a lot about maximizing their gains.
When the Los Angeles Times published a story on the outflow, it
didn't have much trouble identifying the reason: The exodus is
economic. In the world's stalest states, such as Germany or
Japan, people faced with cost-of-living waters rising to choking
levels turn numb and go nowhere. But here in the U.S. moving on
is a tradition, and today we have Web sites to reveal a suitable
refuge from state political cultures intent on keeping the
spending and tax spigot open.
Monstermoving.com lets you discover relative buying power if you
lived somewhere else. Let's type in L.A. and Tucson, just next
door: "A salary of $30,000 in Los Angeles has the same buying
power that a salary of $13,448 has in Tucson." For Las Vegas the
figure is $13,241. If on top of this they elect a Gray Davis
governor, why stay?
New Yorkers' third-favorite refugee camp is North Carolina. Easy
to see why: You've got to earn $45,000 in the Big Apple to buy
what $7,191 gets in Durham. As the Census report dryly puts it:
"Five times as many people moved from New York to North Carolina
as moved in the opposite direction."
Yes, retirees go to Florida, but the size of the flow is mind-
boggling; in five years, 308,000 New Yorkers went there. It is
now economically irrational for a middle-class person to retire
in New York City.
If owning a home is central to the American dream, the blue
states are becoming a nightmare. Realtor.com lets you learn why
the dream is turning red: a three-bedroom house that costs
$285,000 in L.A. is $155,725 in Tucson.
New York City's hostility to 20-something apartment seekers, the
seed-corn of its economy, is legendary. But a two-bedroom
apartment goes for $760 in Richmond, Va., and $895 in Nashville,
Tenn. For those prices you can't sleep on the street in New
York. Many young New Yorkers spend 50% of their before-tax
income on rent.
Of the 10 states with the highest combined tax burden, eight are
blue states, according to the Tax Foundation.
The ACCRA cost-of-living index, run out of George Mason
University, provides another telling comparison. These are
fourth-quarter 2002 numbers with 100.0 as the U.S. average.
Blues: Los Angeles, 137.8; San Francisco, 182.3; Boston, 135.5;
and always-frightening New York (Manhattan), 216.2.
Reds: Phoenix, 95.1; Tampa, 90.5; Atlanta, 98.1; Houston, 90.8.
There are exceptions; you can live like an average American and
still be a Democrat by living in Pittsburgh, at 1.5 below the
national average.
Democratic dictum holds that all this is necessary to support
"needs." But what is the point if only the uppermost-middle-
class can afford their idea of Eden?
Arnie Schwarzenegger should challenge Cruz Bustamante to explain
why Hispanics should vote for a party piling cost after cost on
their lives. This week, the state Democratic Senate President
Pro Tem John Burton of San Francisco gave the answer: "You can't
walk into a restaurant and have a meal without paying for it,
without washing dishes." Gee, now you've got to wash your own
dishes in California's restaurants? How bad can it get?
Will the last person leaving the blue states please turn out the
lights.
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's
editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on
OpinionJournal.com.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Greg" <gwa001@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F500EAD.1020300@no-spam
> WTF has any of this to do with socialism?
Seems to me that big brother creaming the tax dollar and not adding value to
peoples lives gets people itchy to move on.
If there was a low cost alternative around the pacific that was also
friendly a lot more of us would move on.
Joy
"Greg" <gwa001@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F500EAD.1020300@no-spam
> WTF has any of this to do with socialism?
Try to catch up.
>
> Redbaiter wrote:
> > The victims of socialism are voting against it the best way they
> > can. By getting to hell out of it and letting all the leeches,
> > parasites and bludgers sink into their own shit..
> >
> > What's this got to do with NZ???
> >
> > Its going to happen here too, and the sooner the better. Can't
> > wait to see all you state worshipping fucking leeches starving
> > and homeless.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > WONDER LAND
> > Blue-State Pols Are Emptying Their Own States
> > BY DANIEL HENNINGER
> > August 29, 2003
> >
> > The most significant voting bloc in California's famous recall
> > election isn't Hispanics or angry male Democrats but the people
> > who were so eager to weigh in that they've already voted--with
> > their feet.
> >
> > According to a report out this month from the U.S. Census
> > Bureau, an astounding 2,204,500 Californians threw in the towel
> > from 1995 to 2000 and highballed it out of the "Golden State."
> > The state's net migration figure for the period is minus-
> > 755,536, and would be worse if Latin American immigrants didn't
> > still drop in for a look.
> >
> > This is the first time the net migration number for California
> > has ever gone negative.
> >
> > We in New York should be so lucky to have a chance to recall our
> > profligate pols. The Census figures make those of us staying in
> > the "Empire State" look like the nation's biggest saps: Some
> > 1,600,725 shrewd subjects of Albany's empire saw in the late
> > 1990s that the pols were blowing the revenue surge out the
> > window and escaped ahead of the recent tax hikes passed to close
> > the inevitable deficit.
> >
> > Because so many former New Yorkers understood the meaning of
> > present-discounted non-value, the state took first place in net
> > migration loss: minus-874,248. The bureau says New Yorkers fled
> > to every state in the Union except Nebraska and the District of
> > Columbia. Don't expect this datum to show up in the welcoming
> > speeches by George Pataki and Mike Bloomberg when the GOP holds
> > its weirdly inappropriate convention in Manhattan next year.
> >
> > If you look down the Census Bureau's coming-and-going column
> > nearby, the consistent breakdown of Democratic blue-state
> > population losers and Republican red-state gainers is striking
> > (there are exceptions; Oregon and Washington state gained, while
> > Louisiana lost). This may leave the blue states bluer than ever,
> > but not very pleasant places to live if their most industrious,
> > motivated citizens are loading up one-way U-Hauls.
> >
> > It's well known that Arizona and Nevada are growth states, but
> > the numbers for places generally thought to be mostly desert are
> > impressive: Arizona's net gain is 316,148; Nevada's is 233,934.
> >
> > The economies of California, New York and Illinois have been
> > supported for years by inflows of foreign-born immigrants, and
> > they still come. But this census shows large net losses even of
> > recent immigrants in these three blue states. Almost certainly
> > these are the most motivated, successful new arrivers, who know
> > a lot about maximizing their gains.
> >
> > When the Los Angeles Times published a story on the outflow, it
> > didn't have much trouble identifying the reason: The exodus is
> > economic. In the world's stalest states, such as Germany or
> > Japan, people faced with cost-of-living waters rising to choking
> > levels turn numb and go nowhere. But here in the U.S. moving on
> > is a tradition, and today we have Web sites to reveal a suitable
> > refuge from state political cultures intent on keeping the
> > spending and tax spigot open.
> >
> > Monstermoving.com lets you discover relative buying power if you
> > lived somewhere else. Let's type in L.A. and Tucson, just next
> > door: "A salary of $30,000 in Los Angeles has the same buying
> > power that a salary of $13,448 has in Tucson." For Las Vegas the
> > figure is $13,241. If on top of this they elect a Gray Davis
> > governor, why stay?
> >
> > New Yorkers' third-favorite refugee camp is North Carolina. Easy
> > to see why: You've got to earn $45,000 in the Big Apple to buy
> > what $7,191 gets in Durham. As the Census report dryly puts it:
> > "Five times as many people moved from New York to North Carolina
> > as moved in the opposite direction."
> >
> > Yes, retirees go to Florida, but the size of the flow is mind-
> > boggling; in five years, 308,000 New Yorkers went there. It is
> > now economically irrational for a middle-class person to retire
> > in New York City.
> >
> > If owning a home is central to the American dream, the blue
> > states are becoming a nightmare. Realtor.com lets you learn why
> > the dream is turning red: a three-bedroom house that costs
> > $285,000 in L.A. is $155,725 in Tucson.
> >
> > New York City's hostility to 20-something apartment seekers, the
> > seed-corn of its economy, is legendary. But a two-bedroom
> > apartment goes for $760 in Richmond, Va., and $895 in Nashville,
> > Tenn. For those prices you can't sleep on the street in New
> > York. Many young New Yorkers spend 50% of their before-tax
> > income on rent.
> >
> > Of the 10 states with the highest combined tax burden, eight are
> > blue states, according to the Tax Foundation.
> > The ACCRA cost-of-living index, run out of George Mason
> > University, provides another telling comparison. These are
> > fourth-quarter 2002 numbers with 100.0 as the U.S. average.
> > Blues: Los Angeles, 137.8; San Francisco, 182.3; Boston, 135.5;
> > and always-frightening New York (Manhattan), 216.2.
> > Reds: Phoenix, 95.1; Tampa, 90.5; Atlanta, 98.1; Houston, 90.8.
> > There are exceptions; you can live like an average American and
> > still be a Democrat by living in Pittsburgh, at 1.5 below the
> > national average.
> >
> > Democratic dictum holds that all this is necessary to support
> > "needs." But what is the point if only the uppermost-middle-
> > class can afford their idea of Eden?
> >
> > Arnie Schwarzenegger should challenge Cruz Bustamante to explain
> > why Hispanics should vote for a party piling cost after cost on
> > their lives. This week, the state Democratic Senate President
> > Pro Tem John Burton of San Francisco gave the answer: "You can't
> > walk into a restaurant and have a meal without paying for it,
> > without washing dishes." Gee, now you've got to wash your own
> > dishes in California's restaurants? How bad can it get?
> >
> > Will the last person leaving the blue states please turn out the
> > lights.
> >
> > Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's
> > editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on
> > OpinionJournal.com.
> >
>
Joy says...
>
> "Greg" <gwa001@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F500EAD.1020300@no-spam
> > WTF has any of this to do with socialism?
>
> Seems to me that big brother creaming the tax dollar and not adding value to
> peoples lives gets people itchy to move on.
>
> If there was a low cost alternative around the pacific that was also
> friendly a lot more of us would move on.
> Joy
>
This article suggests a solution to the problem that Tytler's
age old pronouncement raises in that a democracy will eventually
vote itself into bankruptcy, as Kalifornia has done.
Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
and the Nationals.
The migration discussed in the article shows that once again,
the market finds a solution to the problem, and the productive
people who are the target of the thievery just move to a state
where the stealing is not so rife and the politicians are more
responsible (blue states)
The surprising thing tho is how tolerant so many people have
been for so long to this vote buying thievery. Now that they're
finally reacting to it, the bludgers will have to look after
themselves, and the politicians who have curried the favour of
the bludgers will no longer get elected.
As you point out tho Joy, its not a solution to the NZ problem,
because there is nowhere to go. Guess we'll just have to crumble
and bear it.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter says...
> Joy says...
> >
> > "Greg" <gwa001@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F500EAD.1020300@no-spam
> > > WTF has any of this to do with socialism?
> >
> > Seems to me that big brother creaming the tax dollar and not adding value to
> > peoples lives gets people itchy to move on.
> >
> > If there was a low cost alternative around the pacific that was also
> > friendly a lot more of us would move on.
> > Joy
> >
> This article suggests a solution to the problem that Tytler's
> age old pronouncement raises in that a democracy will eventually
> vote itself into bankruptcy, as Kalifornia has done.
>
> Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
> spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
> they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
> and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
> and the Nationals.
>
> The migration discussed in the article shows that once again,
> the market finds a solution to the problem, and the productive
> people who are the target of the thievery just move to a state
> where the stealing is not so rife and the politicians are more
> responsible (blue states)
>
> The surprising thing tho is how tolerant so many people have
> been for so long to this vote buying thievery. Now that they're
> finally reacting to it, the bludgers will have to look after
> themselves, and the politicians who have curried the favour of
> the bludgers will no longer get elected.
>
> As you point out tho Joy, its not a solution to the NZ problem,
> because there is nowhere to go. Guess we'll just have to crumble
> and bear it.
>
>
Damn, "blue states" above should of course be "red states".
Dunno why the hell they have to reverse the colours that way.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f511e79$1@no-spam
...
> Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
> spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
> they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
> and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
> and the Nationals.
Easy Red, or elephant ears will come on calling you a nasty and aggressive
wanker.
> The migration discussed in the article shows that once again,
> the market finds a solution to the problem, and the productive
> people who are the target of the thievery just move to a state
> where the stealing is not so rife and the politicians are more
> responsible (blue states)
>
> The surprising thing tho is how tolerant so many people have
> been for so long to this vote buying thievery. Now that they're
> finally reacting to it, the bludgers will have to look after
> themselves, and the politicians who have curried the favour of
> the bludgers will no longer get elected.
>
> As you point out tho Joy, its not a solution to the NZ problem,
> because there is nowhere to go. Guess we'll just have to crumble
> and bear it.
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Mark Bondurant says...
>
> Red, two million left because the economy is a basket case. They left
> looking for work or just left because they couldn't afford to live
> anywhere but in the back woods of Montana. Why is the California economy
> in the dumpster? Probably, in part, for many of the same reasons as
> Washington's economy is in the dumpster. It could be because of the
> collapse of the tech industry. Even Boing, that pillar of American
> values, is closing it's Puget Sound engineering facility and moving it
> east. And then we have the energy companies . . .
>
> This is Republican disinformation posted to support their recall election
> effort.
>
> (putting on his fireproof suit)
>
> Mark
>
Hey Mark, put your suit on if you want, but I don't get riled at
dissent. However, it helps a lot in that regard if the argument
is substantiated. Your claims are noted, but I see very little
to back them up.
Mr. Henninger's article on the other hand has plenty of facts
and figures to support his assertions.
Yes, the tech industry has collapsed, but the fact is that taxes
and government charges are high in Kalifornia and people are
finding the pastures greener elsewhere. Given they have
government deficit larger than all the other states combined,
they are going to have to raise taxes and charges even further.
Making more people and businesses leave and the deficit worsen.
Its a conundrum that socialists love to take people into. Think
Soviet Union.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:00:27 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
<denver@no-spam> wrote:
>"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f511e79$1@no-spam
>...
>> Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
>> spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
>> they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
>> and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
>> and the Nationals.
>
>Easy Red, or elephant ears will come on calling you a nasty and aggressive
>wanker.
>
He is.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
In article <3f503549$1@no-spam>, "Joy" <jhan2@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Greg" <gwa001@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3F500EAD.1020300@no-spam
>> WTF has any of this to do with socialism?
>
>Seems to me that big brother creaming the tax dollar and not adding value to
>peoples lives gets people itchy to move on.
and wtf does this have to do with socialism ?
>If there was a low cost alternative around the pacific that was also
>friendly a lot more of us would move on.
? que ?
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:42:21 +1000
Redbaiter wrote:
> Mark Bondurant says...
>
>>Red, two million left because the economy is a basket case. They left
>>looking for work or just left because they couldn't afford to live
>>anywhere but in the back woods of Montana. Why is the California economy
>>in the dumpster? Probably, in part, for many of the same reasons as
>>Washington's economy is in the dumpster. It could be because of the
>>collapse of the tech industry. Even Boing, that pillar of American
>>values, is closing it's Puget Sound engineering facility and moving it
>>east. And then we have the energy companies . . .
>>
>>This is Republican disinformation posted to support their recall election
>>effort.
>>
>>(putting on his fireproof suit)
>>
>>Mark
>>
>
> Hey Mark, put your suit on if you want, but I don't get riled at
> dissent. However, it helps a lot in that regard if the argument
> is substantiated. Your claims are noted, but I see very little
> to back them up.
>
> Mr. Henninger's article on the other hand has plenty of facts
> and figures to support his assertions.
>
> Yes, the tech industry has collapsed, but the fact is that taxes
> and government charges are high in Kalifornia and people are
> finding the pastures greener elsewhere. Given they have
> government deficit larger than all the other states combined,
> they are going to have to raise taxes and charges even further.
>
> Making more people and businesses leave and the deficit worsen.
>
> Its a conundrum that socialists love to take people into. Think
> Soviet Union.
I'm afraid the Socialists are way ahead of us on this one Red. The
OECD's tax cartel is actively eliminating the low-tax jurisdictions, to
prevent people from having lower tax jurisdictions to move to. The OECD
calls it "Unfair Tax Competition". The rest of us would just call it
"Tax Competition".
In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
> spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
> they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
> and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
> and the Nationals.
ROTFL.
Californians, true to the pattern all over the USA have a habit of electing
politicians who promise to lower taxes.
As a result one of the richest economies in the world struggles to cope with
outdated, mis-managed and under-resourced infrastructure, giving the whole
place a dreary worn-out look and the state government a huge deficit.
A visit to some of these place you drivel on about would broaden your
horizons immensely.
"Geoff McCaughan" <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message
news:pvx4b.133591$JA5.3160970@no-spam
> In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
> > spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
> > they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
> > and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
> > and the Nationals.
>
> ROTFL.
>
> Californians, true to the pattern all over the USA have a habit of
electing
> politicians who promise to lower taxes.
>
> As a result one of the richest economies in the world struggles to cope
with
> outdated, mis-managed and under-resourced infrastructure, giving the
whole
> place a dreary worn-out look and the state government a huge deficit.
>
> A visit to some of these place you drivel on about would broaden your
> horizons immensely.
Dream on, Geoff. Although it may well be true that there, as here, they
don't spend the money on the things they actually promised to, that says
nothing about the actual amount of taxes taken.
The tax income of the state of California is immense. California itself is
the 8th largest economy on the planet, far out-weighing our puny size, and
it's tax revenues likewise. (About US$66 Billion, or around NZ$110 Billion.
Iow, it's tax revenues are about our entire GDP this year. Previously,
they've been substantially higher, which is the root of the problem: Gray
Davis expected the money to just keep rolling in like the tide. He never
anticipated that strangling the goose that's laying the golden eggs might
not be the soundest of policy measures.)
What Californians have done is elect politicians who barefacedly tell them
they can lower taxes while raising services (an obvious lie). These same
politicians, once elected, have typically raised taxes while raising
services to a lesser degree.
I'll leave it to you to figure out where the margin goes, but Californians
on the whole deserve everything they're getting. They insist on electing
and re-electing these charlatans, and then acting (their one talent?)
surprised when they get shafted again.
It's like Bill Bonner says, I suspect that people get not what they expect,
but what they deserve.
The harder the better, I say.
Denver Fletcher says...
> "Geoff McCaughan" <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:pvx4b.133591$JA5.3160970@no-spam
> > In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
> > > spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
> > > they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
> > > and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
> > > and the Nationals.
> >
> > ROTFL.
> >
> > Californians, true to the pattern all over the USA have a habit of
> electing
> > politicians who promise to lower taxes.
> >
> > As a result one of the richest economies in the world struggles to cope
> with
> > outdated, mis-managed and under-resourced infrastructure, giving the
> whole
> > place a dreary worn-out look and the state government a huge deficit.
> >
> > A visit to some of these place you drivel on about would broaden your
> > horizons immensely.
>
>
> Dream on, Geoff. Although it may well be true that there, as here, they
> don't spend the money on the things they actually promised to, that says
> nothing about the actual amount of taxes taken.
>
> The tax income of the state of California is immense. California itself is
> the 8th largest economy on the planet, far out-weighing our puny size, and
> it's tax revenues likewise. (About US$66 Billion, or around NZ$110 Billion.
> Iow, it's tax revenues are about our entire GDP this year. Previously,
> they've been substantially higher, which is the root of the problem: Gray
> Davis expected the money to just keep rolling in like the tide. He never
> anticipated that strangling the goose that's laying the golden eggs might
> not be the soundest of policy measures.)
>
> What Californians have done is elect politicians who barefacedly tell them
> they can lower taxes while raising services (an obvious lie). These same
> politicians, once elected, have typically raised taxes while raising
> services to a lesser degree.
>
> I'll leave it to you to figure out where the margin goes, but Californians
> on the whole deserve everything they're getting. They insist on electing
> and re-electing these charlatans, and then acting (their one talent?)
> surprised when they get shafted again.
>
> It's like Bill Bonner says, I suspect that people get not what they expect,
> but what they deserve.
>
> The harder the better, I say.
>
>
>
Like New Zealand, the socialists will never address the question
of where all the money is going. Like New Zealand, huge amounts
of tax are being collected, yet infrastructure is a disaster.
Twice as much tax is collected today, but infrastructure is
worse than when only a quarter of the current amount was
collected.
Where's the money going Geoff? Where did it go in Kalifornia? To
buy the votes of the political cronies of the government.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter says...
> Denver Fletcher says...
> > "Geoff McCaughan" <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:pvx4b.133591$JA5.3160970@no-spam
> > > In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kalifornian voters have persisted in electing big taxing big
> > > > spending politicians. These politicians know how to get elected,
> > > > they promise to steal money from those who won't vote for them
> > > > and give it to those who will. Just like the Klark government
> > > > and the Nationals.
> > >
> > > ROTFL.
> > >
> > > Californians, true to the pattern all over the USA have a habit of
> > electing
> > > politicians who promise to lower taxes.
> > >
> > > As a result one of the richest economies in the world struggles to cope
> > with
> > > outdated, mis-managed and under-resourced infrastructure, giving the
> > whole
> > > place a dreary worn-out look and the state government a huge deficit.
> > >
> > > A visit to some of these place you drivel on about would broaden your
> > > horizons immensely.
> >
> >
> > Dream on, Geoff. Although it may well be true that there, as here, they
> > don't spend the money on the things they actually promised to, that says
> > nothing about the actual amount of taxes taken.
> >
> > The tax income of the state of California is immense. California itself is
> > the 8th largest economy on the planet, far out-weighing our puny size, and
> > it's tax revenues likewise. (About US$66 Billion, or around NZ$110 Billion.
> > Iow, it's tax revenues are about our entire GDP this year. Previously,
> > they've been substantially higher, which is the root of the problem: Gray
> > Davis expected the money to just keep rolling in like the tide. He never
> > anticipated that strangling the goose that's laying the golden eggs might
> > not be the soundest of policy measures.)
> >
> > What Californians have done is elect politicians who barefacedly tell them
> > they can lower taxes while raising services (an obvious lie). These same
> > politicians, once elected, have typically raised taxes while raising
> > services to a lesser degree.
> >
> > I'll leave it to you to figure out where the margin goes, but Californians
> > on the whole deserve everything they're getting. They insist on electing
> > and re-electing these charlatans, and then acting (their one talent?)
> > surprised when they get shafted again.
> >
> > It's like Bill Bonner says, I suspect that people get not what they expect,
> > but what they deserve.
> >
> > The harder the better, I say.
> >
> >
> >
> Like New Zealand, the socialists will never address the question
> of where all the money is going. Like New Zealand, huge amounts
> of tax are being collected, yet infrastructure is a disaster.
>
> Twice as much tax is collected today, but infrastructure is
> worse than when only a quarter of the current amount was
> collected.
>
> Where's the money going Geoff? Where did it go in Kalifornia? To
> buy the votes of the political cronies of the government.
>
>
That second paragraph is a bit convoluted..:) Should read
something like..
"Even with so much tax collected today, infrastructure is in a
worse state than when only a quarter of the amount was
collected."
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f53e1a6$1@no-spam
> Denver Fletcher says...
> > "Geoff McCaughan" <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:pvx4b.133591$JA5.3160970@no-spam
> > > In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> Like New Zealand, the socialists will never address the question
> of where all the money is going. Like New Zealand, huge amounts
> of tax are being collected, yet infrastructure is a disaster.
It's like this Red, the tax money is just being circulated by civil servants
who are not on the unemployment lists, where they would otherwise be. The
government must be the biggest employer in New Zealand and it has people
paid to think up new kinds of activities for the people to do. The quality
of work achieved is not important.
Joy
In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> "Even with so much tax collected today, infrastructure is in a
> worse state than when only a quarter of the amount was
> collected."
<sarcasm>
Fortunately the population has remained static, and medical science hasn't
advanced at all so there's been no change in costs over the last ~50 years.
</sarcasm>
Joy says...
>
> "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3f53e1a6$1@no-spam
> > Denver Fletcher says...
> > > "Geoff McCaughan" <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:pvx4b.133591$JA5.3160970@no-spam
> > > > In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> > Like New Zealand, the socialists will never address the question
> > of where all the money is going. Like New Zealand, huge amounts
> > of tax are being collected, yet infrastructure is a disaster.
>
> It's like this Red, the tax money is just being circulated by civil servants
> who are not on the unemployment lists, where they would otherwise be. The
> government must be the biggest employer in New Zealand and it has people
> paid to think up new kinds of activities for the people to do. The quality
> of work achieved is not important.
> Joy
>
You've got that dead right Joy. So much of the tax being
collected is only in reality paper money.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
