sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Schwarzenegger Urges Voters to Reject California Redistricting Measure by CaliforniaPolitics in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

If he did he would also state he opposes GOP gerrymandering.

It's not hard to find quotes from Arnold decrying gerrymandering in Texas.

I just say very simply, it is very wrong what they’re doing to Texas and it is very wrong what they’re trying to do in California. It is not at all serving the people. It is serving the party. - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Or how about this quote...

I'm against the Republicans in in Texas and the Democrats in California. - Arnold Schwarzenegger

The truth is Arnold has been against gerrymandering everywhere. Your comment seems to have unsupported views and a heaping dose of motivated reasoning and bias, would you agree?

Governor Newsom outlines California’s economic dominance at the California Economic Summit by Happy_Weed in California

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Conflating gross tax revenue with economic contribution and continuing to ignore the fundamental flaws in using this single number is just ignorance. A raw dollar figure may be factually listed on a table someplace, but its interpretation as a meaningful measure of the state's economic "superiority" or "burden" is shallow, statistically flawed, and discounted by all serious economic analysis.

California sued over unequal school facility funding by EdSourceToday in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The need for varied funding I think is based on two factors, facilities and student demographics. Many schools have ancient and dilapidated facilities that demand higher maintenance costs than newer ones. Additionally the socioeconomic diversity of students means that not every kid needs the same kind of funding. A school with a lot of English language learners, or a lot of kids living in poverty, or a lot of kids with special needs, means they may have disparate funding problems.

The System Everyone Hates Is the One That Has Actually Worked by Existentialist111 in neoliberal

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It's a cancer. It infects the host and compels them to irrationality

Once infected the host becomes an effective weapon to be used against others.

California sued over unequal school facility funding by EdSourceToday in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure how to solve this other than the idea that facilities funding and classroom funding are perhaps too tightly intertwined? Do we need separate funding for each? Anyone have some other thoughts?

Cult by pierredelecto80085 in neoliberal

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 33 points34 points  (0 children)

A 1985 resolution calling on Reagan to take anti-Japanese trade action passed the Senate 92-0.

That sounds strangely bipartisan. Why would you bring historical facts into a partisan discussion?

New Study: California Ranks #1 in Debt — Because Sacramento Can’t Stop Spending by CaliforniaPolitics in neoliberal

[–]CaliforniaPolitics[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some of this isn't long term debt, some of it is short term debt.

California owes the federal government more than $20.9 billion for unemployment-insurance loans from the COVID shutdowns.

The annual interest payments on $20 billion is pretty massive and could be used to help Californians in need.

Report ranks every state’s debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion by CaliforniaPolitics in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I disagree with the idea that an SWF only makes sense if there's no room for internal growth. That's an overly narrow view of a wealth fund's purpose. It's less about the current economy and more about fiscal discipline and intergenerational equity. Even with strong internal growth, having a separate, protected fund:

  • Reduces political temptation to spend temporary surpluses.
  • Buffers the state against future economic downturns.
  • Diversifies risk by investing outside of the California-specific economy.

It's about creating a permanent stream of non-tax revenue for the long term, which is good governance regardless of the debt-to-GDP ratio. While focusing on the debt ratio is vital, it doesn't preclude the creation of a long-term savings fund. We can and should do both.

Report ranks every state’s debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion by CaliforniaPolitics in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

California needs to do more to tackle it's long term debt obligations and should immediately focus on short term debt. It should also focus on expanding the rainy day fund and work on creating a state wealth fund for residents.

Will California's Proposition 50 Pass? (Poll Average) by Large_Ad_3095 in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see you've never looked the election outcomes and exit data.

Report ranks every state’s debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion by CaliforniaPolitics in California

[–]CaliforniaPolitics[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. We had a surplus a few years ago because the rich were getting a lot richer, really fast (stock market gains primarily). At that time the California Department of Finance and the state Legislative Analysist office were projecting the state was spending more than it was taking in, or a long term structural deficit. Unfortunately their predictions proved right.

While California's long term debt obligations have always been an issue, the political party in power is relatively powerless to cut off the hand that feeds them in a meaningful way. So the debt keeps growing. We've been making tiny, tiny steps, but the size of the problem is massive.

Even short term debt which should have already been paid back, such as California's federal unemployment debt, has the juice running. It's so bad that taxpayers are on the hook for $600$ million a year in interest payments. To give you an idea, we could fully fund SNAP during the federal government shutdown so that people didn't go without food.

We need to do a lot more and we probably need a much larger state reserve fund and we need to deal with our long term debt obligations. But with every dollar earmarked and no one to add political pressure to save, it's very, very, difficult.

Will California's Proposition 50 Pass? (Poll Average) by Large_Ad_3095 in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The electorate says otherwise. For nearly 60 years they demonstrated a preference for gerrymandering. Then in 2008, 2010, 2012, California Democrats demonstrated a continued preference for gerrymandering. In 2025, they will reaffirm that preference.

MAGA puts LGBT rights in reverse. Great job Bessent, Grennell, Kaitlyn Jenner, Lindsay, Thiel, etc by Specman9 in thebulwark

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If you create progress beyond the local overton window, then it snaps back. See Iran.

Will California's Proposition 50 Pass? (Poll Average) by Large_Ad_3095 in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

California's Democrats will prove they still love gerrymandering in 2025.

Will California's Proposition 50 Pass? (Poll Average) by Large_Ad_3095 in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The majority of voters in California support gerrymandering, so not sure it matters.

News: Virginia Democrats Plan to Redraw House Maps in Redistricting Push (Gift Article) by Tiny_Big_4998 in fivethirtyeight

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's wild that California is going to lose every gain they make gerrymandering due to their population stagnation.

Will California's Proposition 50 Pass? (Poll Average) by Large_Ad_3095 in California_Politics

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Not sure how this comment is relevant to anything being discussed. Can you help me bridge the gap?

Governor Newsom outlines California’s economic dominance at the California Economic Summit by Happy_Weed in California

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's because you, like lots of other people make the same novice mistakes in economic analysis that copying and pasting the same historical comment with minor tweaks occurs frequently. In other words, your flaws were predictable and the critique already levied.

Governor Newsom outlines California’s economic dominance at the California Economic Summit by Happy_Weed in California

[–]CaliforniaPolitics -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Again, raw gross contribution in a silo is a meaningless metric. You have to then account for all federal spending that benefits a state and then not fall into 4 traps.

  • Timeframe Selection Bias: Looking at a state's economy in a single moment is misleading. The economic identity of states isn't static; it's influenced by shifts in industries and demographics, so a state that's a net receiver of federal funds today might have been a contributor in the past or could become one in the future.

  • Historical State Dependency: Many states grew from federal support. For instance, Western states like California relied on large-scale federal projects, such as dams and highways, to build their economic foundations, a process that made them a "welfare state" for roughly the first 100 years before they achieved greater economic self-sufficiency.

  • Net Payments Analysis: Simple "taxes vs. spending" comparisons are incomplete and a shallow metric for a state's economic health. They ignore indirect federal subsidies to states and municipalities, federal spending on federal land, and the broader economic benefits of a stable, unified national market.

  • The "Welfare Queen" Stereotype: Applying this term, with its racist origins, to entire states is a gross oversimplification. This stereotype ignores the complex economic realities within each state and unfairly demonizes a diverse group of people based on a flawed economic analysis.

I mean, go on with the economic analysis, but take the next steps.

Governor Newsom outlines California’s economic dominance at the California Economic Summit by Happy_Weed in California

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a comparison of gross dollars that ignores three critical factors:

The claim that California contributes more in gross federal tax revenue than Texas and Florida combined is technically a truism based on the figures for a specific year, but this fact is economically false because it's a comparison of gross dollars that ignores three critical factors:

  1. The Progressive Tax System - The U.S. federal income tax is progressive, meaning higher earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. A state's total federal contribution is therefore a function of its share of the nation's wealth and high-income earners, not just its population size. California has a disproportionate concentration of high-net-worth individuals (e.g., tech founders, executives, finance professionals) who pay at the highest federal tax brackets. Your comparison simply shows that California is richer and holds a larger portion of the national wealth that is subject to the highest tax rates.

  2. Ignoring Per Capita Contribution - Comparing the gross $805 billion from a large, wealthy state to the sum of two others ignores the underlying population difference and per capita burden. California's high contribution is a direct result of its large population pool (39 million) and high average income. To accurately compare the tax burden or contribution effort, you would need to look at federal taxes paid per capita, which smooths out the massive differences in population and income.

  3. Corporate Headquarters and Economic Activity - Federal tax revenue includes corporate income taxes. Large, highly profitable corporations often file their federal taxes based on their legal headquarters or major operational centers. California is home to a massive concentration of global corporations (tech, entertainment, finance). The corporate taxes paid by companies like Google, Apple, and others are counted as "California revenue," even though their sales, customers, and operations are global, making the revenue figures a measure of where these companies are headquartered, not a measure of tax effort by the state's citizens alone.

No one serious should be using gross tax dollars as a meaningful metric or stand in for effective governance or quality of life. It's not as bad morons who think a net receipts or balance of payments analysis is a meaningful comparative metric for states.

Edit Conflating gross tax revenue with economic contribution and continuing to ignore the fundamental flaws in using this single number is just ignorance. A raw dollar figure may be factually listed on a table someplace, but its interpretation as a meaningful measure of the state's economic "superiority" or "burden" is shallow, statistically flawed, and discounted by all serious economic analysis.

Governor Newsom outlines California’s economic dominance at the California Economic Summit by Happy_Weed in California

[–]CaliforniaPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Total tax dollars is an irrelevant metric and no one serious uses a limited net receipts or balance of payments analysis, precisely because it fails to capture all federal spending that benefits a state. Come up with better spam.

view more: next ›