Hey Mark, we enjoyed your presence over @ crooksandliars.com tonight. Too bad you didn't seem to hang around for the Music Club we got over there as it's a good thing.

Being a native born California and still living here I can attest to both the immigration and the moving out. One of the busiest buisnesses in town here is the Uhaul. :)

Seriously though when I moved to Colorado there was constant complaints of "all the Californians" moving in and our bad driving habits. :)

Personally I'd love to move back to Colorado, but my job is here. *Shrugs*

Now while I fully agree that many of the problems we have in California are because of our lefty "solutions" that have been going on for years, let's not put blame there for just a moment. The fact is many of the cities and counties are in fact run by Democrats. What are they doing to help improve California? To solve our current problems? That is what maters and from what I see daily they're not doing very well. :(

stanley,

?

gozer,

well, you gotta pay for those vital services, right? SF has the highest home prices in America...but thats ok, as long as your sex change is paid for by the city.

:o)

How exactly do you figure high property values are the result of liberal politics? Property values reflect the desirability of living in a particular place - could it perhaps be that people enjoy plentiful public greenspace, a well supported arts community, etc - things that liberal politicians work towards supporting in their communities? (Having said that, the housing market is nuts right now.)

You've sort of got things backwards. If you want to exploit a stereotype of liberals, you might mention something like rent controls, which have the opposite effect on property values.

You, being the market worshipping wh*re that you are, should perhaps second guess yourself here. Why exactly is it that people are more willing to pay premium prices to live in "liberal" cities?

Winnow,

The State with the higher population density - ie, housing demand - should be the State with the highest home prices. California is the 12th most densely populated State in the nation, but it has the second highest median home price (Hawaii has the highest median price - but its a small State with strange real estate laws). By all rights, California should have home prices in line with those of Illinois...but California prices are more than twice the Illinois prices.

Why are home prices so high? Because very rich, mostly very white liberals who are sitting on massive equity value keep passing laws and regulations which prevent the construction of new housing at a production rate which would keep the price down. Its not like California is overflowing with people - about a third of the State has a population density of less than 1 per mile. And if you think even densely populated areas like San Francisco (close to the very highest prices in the United States, been losing population - ie, losing housing demand - for years now) are slopping over with people, think again. SF has a population density of 6,423 per sq km...Paris has a density of 24,672 per sq km. That means that four Frenchies live in the same area as one SFer...which means that those lefties up there aren't being properly lefty and communal about things.

For a while, the overall US economy - and especially California's part in trans-shipments of goods in and out of the US - masked the fact that California was becoming an economic basket case...this can't be hidden anymore. Each time I go to LA, it seems more and more run down, more third world...crumbling streets, filthy sidwalks, trash blowing in the wind, dilapidated housing outside the enclaves of the very rich. A city which is becoming the abode of the very rich and the very poor. People are leaving the liberal havens - for rural California, where the full effect of liberal tax and regulation still hasn't been felt but, as liberalism creeps into the inland counties, more and more moving out of the State. There's a reason we get 6,000 new arrivals in Las Vegas every month, ya know? We've even got a word for it: we're being "Californicated". Of course, I'm one of the Californicators...I grew up there: the house I live in now, I couldn't get for less than a million dollars in any decent area of California...and that is just too rich for this middle class man's blood; fortunately, here in Nevada I can get it for less than half that...here in Las Vegas...if I moved 40 miles north, I could get is for less than a quarter that price.

Its understandable why our home prices in Las Vegas have skyrocketed...we can't physically build the homes and infrastructure any faster than we are...but in California, there is no excuse for such high home prices, and only liberal/left interference in the market can explain why a slack demand State has the highest prices in the nation.

California is such a beautiful state, yet it's ruined because the cost of living is SO...FRAKKIN'...HIGH! I feel bad that I can't afford to move there.

I've lived in L.A. for twenty years now and am looking for the way out. It is beautiful here, and there is plenty to do, but you get hit in the pocketbook everywhere.

Car insurance is high, mostly due to the massive numbers of uninsured motorists. I don't know why they call them uninsured since the rest of us are paying for them.

I recently looked at a 900 square foot condo that was a bargain at $500,000.

Illegal immigrants have been using our emergency rooms for regular medical care since they are not allowed to ask about their residency status. The result: Higher costs for the rest of us and the closure of about 60% of them.

But here is my biggest observation about California: Nobody grows up here. Because it is expensive and there is so much to be distracted by, people wait a long time to get married and raise families. Many who finally get married, never have kids or have the token one child. Everyone seems to be in a constant state of adolescence. There are countless women here approaching the age of 40 having never been married, are childless and rapidly becoming bitter. The women who will not get married until 'their career takes off' or who won't get pregnant because 'I don't want to do that to my body' are making a heaven for men who never want to grow up.A lot of men here will never commit because there is no reason to. They have it easy and as a result, they are single and only have to spend money on themselves.

I work in a lot of Midwest states for months at a time. Currently I am in Iowa for a three month engagement. And I love it here. I am surrounded by adults that just so happen to be my age. People doing what normal people do. And guess what, they are happier than my L.A. counterparts. I have found this to be true almost everywhere I have been in the U.S.

Nice weather and Disneyland are not reasons enough to live here.

Actually Mark's thought on population density comparisons is incorrect. California is densily populated at- LA, SF, AC, OAK, etc. The REASON it is so expensive. I can recall Santa arbara and San Luis obispbo being so expensive many many years ago for the same reason it stil is today- population density AND no room for growth in those areas.

Now another point- California is so big...if you guys have lived here you realize it takes pretty much 10 hours to get from SD to SF...oh folks- that's only half way up the state!

it could also take 9 or more hours to drive from the coast to NEV or AZ. So while many states take 3 hours to get from oposing borders, you can see California is HUGE.

BTW- it'd be a damb shame if all that money didn't get taxed and go to pay for PUBLIC roads, PUBLIC restrroms, PUBLIC beaches, PUBLIC forests, parks, etc. IF you don't like paying taxes then stay off these PUBLIC facilities...simple solution.

1 other thing in "liberal" California. We have 18 national forests, 278 state beaches and parks, and over 36M folks. That's just 5 million less than the next 2most poulous stas combined. Californias population is also greater than 20 or more of the least populous states COMBINED.

So we have a lot of people and a lot of space. Oh and relative to the US, California's population density- the US has aprox 80 people per sq mile. California has 3 times that amount at more than 200 people per square mile. So again Mark's population density garble is flawed.

Mark's analysis of the decay of the state is right on. I took some foreign friends through SoCal a couple of years ago on our way to a meeting up north, and I have never seen anyone so thoroughly disappointed and disillusioned.

And Mark also made the excellent point that the state is rapidly becoming divided into the very rich and the very poor. The very rich could afford to support the very poor, I guess, but most of them have elaborate mechanisms established to keep their tax burdens pretty low. And the middle class just can't handle the combination of a disintegrating infrastructure, skyrocketing housing costs, and exorbitant taxes.

When so many Californians were displaced by mudslides and earthquakes and/or fires, they learned that they could spend their insurance money on housing in other states and get three or four times the house for what they had been spending in California. In Colorado, we have had "Don't Californicate Colorado" bumper stickers for years, as we have had to deal with the influx of West Coast refugees drving up our housing prices as they drop a million or two on houses and gloat over their "bargains".

I have to spend a couple of weeks out there in the spring, and am just grateful that it is in the northern part of the state.

Almiranta- of course. I knew several exchange students years ago in college. They were all surprised at teh "culture shock" they experienced flying into LAX. I can't apologize for their experience.

But i agree with you on the dichotomy of those tha thave and those that have not. But i see it as a right wing plan to further seprerate classes. I think any righty would no doubt disagree.

1 question- by "northern" do you mean the bay area? becuase that is geographically the central part of the state. but socially i suppose the north. I am at the tip of N cal, and have lived down in San Bernardino and the central coast. So i know about the diversity and the finances and yo name it about CAL. I'm not an expert, but i have been and lived all ove rhs state. And a few other states as well.

But Cal certainly has it's problems.hell i (shh don't tell any one) i voted for Arnold. best cote i may have ever cast.

I'm still very divided on the Governator. All I can say is at least he's trying. I don't know what it's like up in N Cal anymore, but I live in the deserts of So-Cal. The middle of friggin nowhere Barstow, CA. We have TONS of space to expand, tons of free land to go to (even if you stay away from BLM land) and yet prices have been skyrocketing here for the last decade or so.

There is more to property prices than population densisity. Again we can't look at any one thing as a problem or a solution. None of these things work in a vacuum after all.

The left will always cry when America's enemies are killed

Mark -
> ?

That wasn't you? Sure looked like you. You should write John over there and give him your IP so he can know when someone's impersonating you.

It was a good impersonation, I think you agree with everything the apparent impersonator said.

PA, NY, NJ, OH, MI, MA all have higher pop. density and lower home prices than CA. Was there a point to that?

Notice, btw, that the population of CA isn't actually falling as Noonan implies. It is that the rate of growth is coming down. This would happen if the same amount of people moved there And that speed enforcement is incredibly lax outsevery year and nobody left at all.

Doesn't the high price of homes kind of indicate that a whole lot more people want to live there than elsewhere?

it could also take 9 or more hours to drive from the coast to NEV or AZ.

I drive regularly between LA and Las Vegas, and it usually takes me about 4 hours, even with nasty LA traffic. I get to San Diego in under 6. You do know to take I-15, right? And that the speed limit is 70? And that driving the speed limit on that highway means you'll get passed a lot? I'm just sayin'...

Gozer- well look at it like this- do you really enjoy Barstow? LOL would't prime land in maibu rock? The otehr funny thing is of course- we have LOT's of water...why we have redwoods! But down there all the water is piped in.

LA wanted prime land but there wasn't water- no secret. But we have so much it keeps the prices down here- no SUN! One other oddity- we get acre lots! and pay 1/4 or less than in SoCal. is that nuts or what?!??!? typical houses all over So Cal and the central coast your neighbors are right on your back. SF of course exemplifies the population density issue. Now that's just too cozy for me. but still funny- you pay for no land- here they're givin' it away! LOL

Opponent...you say, regarding the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the erosion of the middle class, "..But i see it as a right wing plan to further seprerate classes."

Now, I am sure you think you believe this---but to believe it is to simply defy fact and history.

First, the best way to keep the poor poor is to just give them money. Not enough money to get ahead, just enough money to keep them fed and housed, albeit in substandard housing and for the most part poorly fed. Factor in terrible education and you have a recipe for an ongoing poverty class.

This is NOT the conservative approach to poverty. Remember the Contract With America, in which conservatives promised to overhaul the welfare system? Yes, Bill signed it and then took credit for it, AFTER it had proven to be effective, but this was based on a conservative principal that working is good for people, good for the country, and the only way out of poverty.

The Right is now fighting for school vouchers, which would allow any family to use whatever is being spent on their students in the public school system to be applied to the private schools of their choice. CHOICE. The poor do not have much choice in this, or in much else. But with equal educational opportunities and with jobs, they can look forward to better lives for themselves and their children.

The tax cuts which are demonized by the Left as being only to benefit the "Rich" have in fact had the most benefit for the poor and middle class. When you hear that the middle class is shrinking, nationally, it is because so many have moved UP in economic class, not down. When the economy is booming, really booming with actual businesses growing and hiring, it is the middle and lower classes who benefit the most. The rich do not swing hammers or sell cars or paint houses or make furniture or install air conditioners. Unemployment is hovering at or near all-time lows---that means Joe Average has a job, if he wants it.

You might try paying closer attention to political rhetoric. It is the Democrats who depend on, and work hard to create, class divisions and class resentments. Their power strategy is one of Divide and Conquer, and their greatest fear is that the poor will stop hating and resenting those who have more than they do and will start working with the affluent and successful to learn how to become affluent and successful themselves.

When I was younger, we looked at those who had more than we did (and that was nearly everyone..) and saw them as proof that we, too, could accomplish and succeed. Today, the poor look at those who have more than they do and just want to drag them down to their own level. This is not only not helpful, regarding escaping from poverty, it is corrosive to the human spirit and bad for the economic future of the country.

You need to examine the reality that, as taxes go down, the actual revenue to the IRS has skyrocketed to all-time highs. No one is having to "pay the bill" for the tax cuts.

I suggest that you step away from the divisive Leftist rhetoric for a few weeks and really look at what the actual political philosophies of the Republican Party are. NOT what you are told they are by the likes of Ranty Rhodes, but what they really represent. If you will do this, if you will look at reality instead of just accepting what you are told by those who will not benefit by your learning the truth, you will see that it is the Democratic Party which is so determined to create and then exploit a divided country.

Here is an example: Politcal contributions to the Republican Party were higher than to the Dems. But the GOP contributions were nearly all in amounts of $45.00 or less, while the contributions to the Dems were fewer but in extremely high amounts.

And look at the demographics: The Dem party is made up of, to a great degree, the very rich and the very poor. It is the Republican Party which has the highest proportion of the middle class, the small business owners.

Mark,

The value of real estate is not determined by population density but by how much people are willing to pay for real estate. People are willing to pay twice as much to live in California as they are willing to pay to live in Florida. That is why housing is so expensive there. One of the reasons why people are willing to pay so much more to live in California is because of opportunities to work for some of the world-leading corporations located there. Google, Apple Computers, Hewlett Packard, Oracle, and Intel are all located there, just to name a few. I doubt anyone working for these corporations would consider California an economic basket case. How many world leading corporations are based in Florida? For America's best and brightest, which do you think they would choose, living in California developing software for a world leading firm such as Google, or paying one half as much for housing and greeting people in DisneyWorld dressed in a Mickey Mouse costume? Why do so many world leading firms choose to locate in California if it's an economic basket case?

Almiranta- "The Right is now fighting for school vouchers, which would allow any family to use whatever is being spent on their students in the public school system to be applied to the private schools of their choice. CHOICE."

Man School voucers aer the most absurd tihng in the world. What in the world are you guys thinking? use public money for MORE privatization?!!!? O he i get it tz dollars were not enough for the public to rob, now you have to take the tax dollars and feed your churches? and their "private" schools? give me a break.

I am sending a neice of mine from a wealthey family to a "christian school" of her choice. Why in the world would i pay for a private church school for a rich neice? that is the lamest thing ever!

Sorry- but the poor paying taxes to pick up the private chruch funds for the rich is yet ANOTHER example of Righty doing a finde job of screwing American Citizens. But hey- lets let all the illegals attend your CHURCH SCHOOLS- yeah- lets pay their tab...sound fair?

Opponent,

The fact of the matter is that the top 50% pay 96.54% of ALL income taxes in America and the
top 1% pay more than a third or about 34.25%.

If you look at the average income, which is somewhere in the $70k per year range you'll notice that below that the taxes that are paid are negligable and those taxpayers couldn't afford to send their kids to private schools without outside assistance anyway.

Therefore, your theory about the poor being stuck with the tax burden is respectfully...simply non-sense.

no problem- i bet once the illegals attend the "ivory" i mena ivy league church schools-- k-12, then righty will want to change their tune.

"No free school for bottom feeders"

Almiranta,

It's not true that as taxes go down, revenues go up. Tax revenue decreased significantly from 2000 - 2003 as a result of Bush's tax cuts. It wasn't until 2005 that annual tax revenues exceeded those from 2000. See page two of document below:

http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

The middle class is shrinking because the number of people living below the poverty level has increased during the Bush Administration. If you look at page 41 on the following chart, the number and percent of food insecure households increased from 2000 to 2003.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/health.pdf