Socialist hellhole California moves from 8th to 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing France

[choomer]

Bohemian grove though...

OK, why do they gather there yearly? Is it the seductive allure of Bucky's "O" face that they go for or could it possibly be collaborative steering of political and financial realms?

 

[fdd2blk]

Why think, why write down what you are thinking, why put it out there for others to critique? Because that is how you formulate and test ideas.

The drought had significant impact across the state. Take a look at what is happening to the Sacramento delta. Take a look at the permanent changes happening in the forests around Yosemite. Take a look at levels of groundwater around the state that will take decades to recharge. Take a look at what's happening to the almond orchards. The list goes on. Southern Cal is still in drought and those wildfires have nothing to do with your lawn other than they were part of the same picture.

So refute what I said. A two word response isn't.

I live in the middle of it all. Nothing is happening. Don't believe the hype. It's a natural cycle.


We were given "restrictions", which simply meant if you use more water you will have to pay for it. That's how it's always been.



Water is diverted from the Delta to the Central Valley to water the crops. That's how it's always been. You understand why the aqueduct was built, don't you?



California almonds, partly blamed for water shortage, now dropping in price
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article57432423.html


I did a Google search but can't seem to find any "permanent changes" in Yosemite. I see a bunch of articles from 2 years ago talking about tourists not being able to see waterfalls. Maybe you have some links.


I have a well in my backyard. When I squeeze my spray nozzle water comes out. I think the "ground water depletion" is part of the scare tactics used to keep the hype flowing. It all leads back to MONEY. Just like recycling.


Wildfires happen every year. It's how the world operates. Wildfires are actually good for nature.

 

[kmog33]

Man, California doesn't have high taxes. Their taxes are only high compared to other states. But state taxes are a fraction of what federal taxes are.

California is still part of the US and its citizens pay federal taxes on top of state. The Fed taxes are historically fairly low. Therefore taxes in California are still low, despite being raised.

This isn't proof of anything. California, like I said earlier, California is fortunate to have so many natural resources and to be the epicenter of so many things. It would take an absolute imbicil to not govern California well.

This is way off. If you're poor in ca, your taxes aren't high. If you have a reasonable amount of money you're getting hit for 40%. Germany taxes their upper tax brackets about that and a bit higher up to ~50% but they also have universal healthcare and you can afford to live off of min wage. Ca also doesn't do capital Gaines, it's taxes just like normal income. Which means 30-40% if you actually make money.

My fiancé and I are having a terrible time buying a house, because we have the money to put 30-40% down, but if we pull the money out of stock we lose basically half of it. And cashing out on $350k and immediately give $160k to the govt....

I don't know what you think is high taxes, but 30-40% of my money seems like a lot to me.

I'm aware I'm including both federal and state taxes, but if I live anywhere other than ca, I would be paying much less on cashing out on investments.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fdd2blk]

I will use the OP's original post as my proof that The Drought in California has had minimal impact on the economy.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Well I'm sure that upon reading that HuffPo feel good story supported in large part by WaPo links (both being such sterling examples of journalistic integrity as noted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) the natural tendency for someone going to those liberally biased news outlets to believe what they read there is completely expected.

But here is a different take supported by this announcing projected Cali state budget deficit of $1.9B even with the higher taxes.
This says that the above is under reported by an additional $300M due to the Jan. stock market crash and Lower Capital Gains Estimates while still averring "Nevertheless, Tax Revenues Still Growing. While the administration lowered its tax revenue estimates since January, the state’s overall General Fund tax revenues (administration estimates for which are listed in Figure 1) still are estimated to grow each year during the state “budget window”: up 5.4 percent in 2015-16 and another 4.0 percent in 2016-17. (Sales taxes grow at a slower rate in 2016-17 as Proposition 30 tax increases start to expire.)"

Is it just me, or do the words "estimate, estimates, estimated" not play a large part in that quoted above paragraphs about future data?
Even 2014-15 data has the caveat that "*In addition, the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million, mainly due to a reduction in personal income tax revenues booked to 2013-14 under the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies." which means to me that there were less people to tax individually under those "complex budgetary revenue accrual policies" which are never defined. Perhaps they mean stuff like the estimation revision of 2014-15 data posted May 2016.

A historical view of of California population numbers (since it is the state with the highest population) shows a population growth of 5 million between 2000-2009 but a growth of less that 500,000 between 2009-2015 even with the reported inclusion of illegal immigrants (even those held in detention centers) which came into practice in 2010.
Seems to me that even though the population is still growing (@ 10% of the growth it had in the previous 9 year growth numbers) it is offset by former California citizens leaving the utopia built from tax.

So...you tell me which estimated numbers are cooked, and which are not.



Read on and then come back w/ your chosen supporting documentation.

Garbage. Half your links don't even work, the half that do regurgitate debunked conservative claims like raising the minimum wage will lead to unemployment (the opposite is true)

"The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of California was 39,144,818 on July 1, 2015, a 5.08% increase since the 2010 United States Census."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#Population

 

[choomer]

You posted links to a bunch of right wing crap and didn't explain yourself in your own words. At least you didn't post the propaganda in it's entirety, so thanks for that. The problem with everything you say is the claim that California is in some sort of economic straits when the reality is it's doing just fine. Especially when compared to fucking Kansas. So these right wing blogs are pretty much bogus echo chamber shit. For example, your last link regarding a National Review article. It was so jam packed with crappy falsehoods that it doesn't bear a careful examination. But here is one tiny factoid that I will refute just as an example:

A third of America’s welfare recipients reside in California. Nearly a quarter of Californians live below the poverty line.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425885/california-high-taxes-immigration-democrats

Wow, that sounds like a big deal, right? On the other hand, a lot of people live in California, so citing straight numbers is deceptive, which was the author's intent. That intent is seen throughout the article. And the same deception is seen in all of the links that I had the patience to open.

Here is reality: As a percentage of revenue, CA is among the least reliant on welfare. So, we have a populous state with relatively low welfare revenue cost. It's a good thing, wouldn't you agree? That's what paddy is talking about. What I'm talking about is the shitty way right wingers treat data. Because they never ask what the data really means. And so you become the tool of the Koch Brothers and others.

You post left wing articles to support your position, I chose "right wing" articles (like california state tax revenue revisions from the state of California) to support mine.

The entire reason for this post is a HuffPo article and you want to slander me as presenting a biased argument?

Yeeeeahhhhhh riiiiiiiiiight.

EDIT: You're right...a lot of the links were dead. I fixed a few.
Of course they're going to be "right wing" posts being used as refuting evidence when you start the thread w/ a known left wing news story that presents little to no evidence.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I will use the OP's original post as my proof that The Drought in California has had minimal impact on the economy.

I didn't say it had minimal effect

I said that despite the drought, CA still managed to pull off one of the highest economic growth rates in the country while implementing economic policies that conservatives like you tell everyone will lead to financial armageddon. So now, next time you make the rest of us suffer from your verbal diarrhea, I'll remind you about the success seen in California

 

[fdd2blk]

I didn't say it had minimal effect

I said that despite the drought, CA still managed to pull off one of the highest economic growth rates in the country while implementing economic policies that conservatives like you tell everyone will lead to financial armageddon. So now, next time you make the rest of us suffer from your verbal diarrhea, I'll remind you about the success seen in California

So let me ask you again, ... "What does The Drought have to do with any of this?"

 

[Fogdog]

You post left wing articles to support your position, I chose "right wing" articles (like california state tax revenue revisions from the state of California) to support mine.

The entire reason for this post is a HuffPo article and you want to slander me as presenting a biased argument?

Yeeeeahhhhhh riiiiiiiiiight.

Nope, that was not a left wing article that I posted. Too funny that. It wasn't even an article at all. It was a graphic showing where CA lines up relative to other states and pretty much obliterates this idea that CA is burdened with high welfare cost. But, yeah, you'd see it that way. Because:

 

[Padawanbater2]

So let me ask you again, ... "What does The Drought have to do with any of this?"

Plants = 2% of a $2.5 trillion economy (twice the size of any other state)
Water = good for plants
If no water = no plants
Drought = no water
How +4.1% with no water with armageddon taxes?

Go back to step 1 and try again

 

[Fogdog]

I live in the middle of it all. Nothing is happening. Don't believe the hype. It's a natural cycle.


We were given "restrictions", which simply meant if you use more water you will have to pay for it. That's how it's always been.



Water is diverted from the Delta to the Central Valley to water the crops. That's how it's always been. You understand why the aqueduct was built, don't you?



California almonds, partly blamed for water shortage, now dropping in price
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article57432423.html


I did a Google search but can't seem to find any "permanent changes" in Yosemite. I see a bunch of articles from 2 years ago talking about tourists not being able to see waterfalls. Maybe you have some links.


I have a well in my backyard. When I squeeze my spray nozzle water comes out. I think the "ground water depletion" is part of the scare tactics used to keep the hype flowing. It all leads back to MONEY. Just like recycling.


Wildfires happen every year. It's how the world operates. Wildfires are actually good for nature.

The almonds, yes, they are to blame for water shortage but not for drought. That seems embarrassingly obvious to me. Did I really need to point that out?

Wildfires in the SW are getting worse. The southwest is still in drought. No connection?

 

[fdd2blk]

Go back to step 1 and try again

All the plants had plenty of water. Maybe you could be a little more clear on your point.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Since when has the government given 1 million to someone?

Bad example. The millionare most definitely stimulates the economy just like the 1000 people.

He spends his money as well on his home, eating, taxes, toys, cars, products and services.

He's not going to spend all of it whereas the 1,000 people with $1,000 likely will spend all of it

A million dollars spent generates more economic activity than whatever the one guy would spend

 

[fdd2blk]

The almonds, yes, they are to blame for water shortage but not for drought. That seems embarrassingly obvious to me. Did I really need to point that out?

Wildfires in the SW are getting worse. The southwest is still in drought. No connection?

No, there is no connection. There have been wildfires since the dawn of time.

You brought up the almonds, not me.

So I'll ask you as well, ... "What does The Drought have to do with any of this?"

Neither you nor Pada have come up with any sort of substantial answer. It wasn't me that brought it up. I'm simply trying to understand the significance. I would expect you or him to be able to better explain it. Maybe I'm asking too much.

 

[Fogdog]

All the plants had plenty of water. Maybe you could be a little more clear on your point.

Are you a proponent of Trump's statement that for CA "there is no in a drought, OK." and that water shortages are due to protecting a fish?

 

[choomer]

Nope, that was not a left wing article that I posted. Too funny that. It wasn't even an article at all. It was a graphic showing where CA lines up relative to other states and pretty much obliterates this idea that CA is burdened with high welfare cost. But, yeah, you'd see it that way. Because:
View attachment 3711892

Sorry, that should have read "thread" instead of "post", but when does welfare cost represent all of it (the taxation)?
Also, that graphic represented states liability to the federal gov't for welfare, not the total cost OF welfare for the state.

 

[Padawanbater2]

All the plants had plenty of water. Maybe you could be a little more clear on your point.

We were given "restrictions", which simply meant if you use more water you will have to pay for it. That's how it's always been.

 

[fdd2blk]

Are you a proponent of Trump's statement that for CA "there is no in a drought, OK." and that water shortages are due to protecting a fish?

To an extent.




California, even with all it's beaches, rose to the 6th largest economy.

 

[abandonconflict]

OK, why do they gather there yearly? Is it the seductive allure of Bucky's "O" face that they go for or could it possibly be collaborative steering of political and financial realms?

To discuss fluoride dispersion, chemtrails and the new world order money supply clearly...

 

[Uncle Ben]

I live in the middle of it all. Nothing is happening. Don't believe the hype. It's a natural cycle.

Not from what I hear. I post to several tropical fruit growing forums and the drought topic has come up quite often. One SoCal grower bluntly said, "what folks here don't understand is California is an arid state".

Average rainfall in Orange County, Ca. is 12.85". That's arid.

If you're getting less than 36" a year of rain a year, not withstanding the fires and all, the lack of sufficient snow to refill the resevoirs and aquifers, you live in a droughty state. In spite of wells being drilled deeper and deeper, more times than not they're coming up dry.