Of course they can, but the difference between government spending and business investments is what happens when they don't yield positive returns. In a business setting, the investors pay for their bad choices; in the government setting, the "investors" (politicians) don't pay for their bad choices, they simply tax citizens for it.
That's why you need to actually _govern_ responsibly. It's something that Republicans know almost nothing about.
And you're probably living in a red state that hasn't seen responsible governance since the time of dinosaurs, so that's why you are thinking that ALL government spending is a waste.
No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. As the term "robber baron" implies, they were state actors first and robbers second. Their industries, foremost steel, banking, and railroads, were massively subsidized and protected by government.
Bullshit. Learn your history. Robber baron era lasted roughly from 1860 to 1910, there had been barely a federal government at that time. Even Fed hadn't been created yet.
I'm no great fan of Republicans, but relatively speaking, Democrats are a lot more "pro-poverty and pro-robbery".
That's why Blue states are all overwhelmingly poor. But how do you reconcile ALL of the politics that Republicans support and any believes that they aren't just out there to rob people? I hesitate to name even one good policy by Republicans that helped to lift people out of poverty or provided protection from monopolistic corporations.
No, you're delusional: government spending doesn't need to yield a return.
Correct. But that doesn't mean that government investments CAN NOT yield direct or indirect returns. An interstate highway system does not yield direct monetary returns (in fact, it's a constant money sink). Yet only idiots would argue that the interstate highway system is useless.
The "robber barons" refers to a group of ultra-wealthy people that enriched themselves through government spending. See above how government spending isn't investment.
Most robber barons acquired their wealth without government intervention. And THEN they started buying mostly local governments. You're all for concentrating power in the hands of easily bought local governments, aren't you?
You're obviously living in a fact free world.
So what's wrong with my evaluation of Republican strategy? It fits perfectly. EVERY action of Republicans helps to advance their pro-poverty and pro-robbery agenda.
Yes, the article mentions that before pointing out the long term problems.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The sky is falling and Social Security will be bankrupt by 2005 or was it 2015? California can solve its problems and if anything pensions will only require minor adjustments to the budget.
Government spending isn't "investment" and doesn't work like a business.
You're delusional. Investment is investment. A government investing in a bridge is not any worse than a private investor building a toll bridge. In fact, government is usually BETTER than private companies for building infrastructure because government can actually concentrate on long-term strategy and not on the best way to get a golden parachute for the CEO.
But I understand, you'd prefer all the wealth to be concentrated in robber-barons' hands that will extract as much wealth as possible from helpless (no court access, no tort laws, no government protection) proles. That's the ideal Republican world.
Well, yes [downtrend.com]. Of course, the sad part is that many of the people who move from blue states to red states then attempt to wreck the states they move to in the same way they wrecked the states they moved from.
People gravitate toward warmer coastal states and it pretty much explains all the migration. But I've chosen Kansas specifically - it lowered its taxes drastically and yet it sees only ruined budgets and net outflow of people. How so?
True. It's primarily a factor for the middle class. People who don't pay taxes, or people who are quite rich, don't really care much about taxes.
Nope. People care about living in a nice and safe location with good schools. Taxes are about 4-th in the order of preference.
Because the only way that California can pay for its pension obligations is to raise taxes, but if California raises taxes, the people paying those taxes move away, which only worsens the fiscal problems. That's what these migration trends are telling you. It's a death spiral that we have already seen at the city level in places like Detroit.
And if you lower taxes then people will flock to your state, right? So Kansas should be bursting at the seams right now from a YUGE influx of people. Oh, wait....
Taxes are just one factor that determines where people want to live. And regarding pensions, I've seen estimates that they can be funded even without increasing taxes. You see, government in California is becoming more effective and needs less employees.
Yes, and that places it at the high end of US states. Note that this is on top of the already high federal debt to gdp ratio.
And I still fail to see the problem. California has no problems with servicing its debt and the federal debt is a red herring here. And never mind that California actually contributes to the federal budget unlike most of other states.
That's a different time horizon from the one we are talking about.
I realize that your time horizon is "the heat death of the Universe". California will be SO screwed by then!
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between "domestic net migration" and "population growth".
And so why is it so bad? I fail to see any problems here.
In fact, without its massive illegal population, California would be losing several congressional seats (which is why Californian politicians love illegals so much).
Yeah, sure. It's plummeting so fast that cities are emptying and property can be bought for next to nothing. Oh, wait... https://www.google.com/publicd...
Dude, at least take care to factcheck your drivel.
The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their creator.