Trump Says San Francisco Streets Are Disgusting

[Tgo01]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but you're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. The Bay Area is what happens when you generate an enormous amount of wealth, but you don't have fiscal policy in place to redistribute it. This is the end game of conservative economic policy, and it's as dysfunctional as you would imagine.

If it weren't in SF, it would be somewhere else. The real issue is that we've been gutting the top marginal tax rate since the 80s because conservative politicians managed to sell people on the idiotic notion that slashing taxes is great for society. Coupled with the fact that stock buybacks were made legal in the Reagan era, and this is what you're left with. The Bay Area can't enact the kind of fiscal policy necessary to redistribute its immense wealth properly, and people are drowning in inflation as a result. California is trying to do its best, but the reality is that business interests are still trumping (har) the interests of normal people even here. (I'm looking at you Ellis Act)

This is a cautionary tale of conservative economic policy. You either end up bankrupt like Kansas, or you end up with massive poverty rates like SF. If the top marginal tax rates were still in the 70s, and if stock buybacks were still considered corrupt (which they are), SF would look like a very different place.

There's a reason why so many of us keep harping on the subject of taxes and income inequality. It's not "just" about doing the moral thing, it's also about enacting necessary policy.

San Fransisco is one of the biggest liberal shit holes in the world. A literal shit hole at that. And you have somehow managed to pin the blame for this on Republicans? The fuck is wrong with you?

[Parkbandit]

San Fransisco is one of the biggest liberal shit holes in the world. A literal shit hole at that. And you have somehow managed to pin the blame for this on Republicans? The fuck is wrong with you?

"B-b-b-but in 1964, there was a Republican mayor.. and they've been trying to clean his mess up ever since!"

[Fortybox]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but you're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. The Bay Area is what happens when you generate an enormous amount of wealth, but you don't have fiscal policy in place to redistribute it. This is the end game of conservative economic policy, and it's as dysfunctional as you would imagine.

If it weren't in SF, it would be somewhere else. The real issue is that we've been gutting the top marginal tax rate since the 80s because conservative politicians managed to sell people on the idiotic notion that slashing taxes is great for society. Coupled with the fact that stock buybacks were made legal in the Reagan era, and this is what you're left with. The Bay Area can't enact the kind of fiscal policy necessary to redistribute its immense wealth properly, and people are drowning in inflation as a result. California is trying to do its best, but the reality is that business interests are still trumping (har) the interests of normal people even here. (I'm looking at you Ellis Act)

This is a cautionary tale of conservative economic policy. You either end up bankrupt like Kansas, or you end up with massive poverty rates like SF. If the top marginal tax rates were still in the 70s, and if stock buybacks were still considered corrupt (which they are), SF would look like a very different place.

There's a reason why so many of us keep harping on the subject of taxes and income inequality. It's not "just" about doing the moral thing, it's also about enacting necessary policy.

Higher taxes don't work. You're a moron and the only reason you advocate this nonsense is for control. Grow government and you get to police people's lives. You're all about fundamental transformation of America because you hate it.

You don't understand anything about economics. Tax cuts generate more tax revenue. JFK, Reagan and now Trump have proven that. The government collected a record $2T in the first half of 2018.

Higher taxes mean fewer governmental services stupid. It also means less quality as now the government has to ration the service.

Stay classy...and dumb time4fun. Thankfully the majority of people in this game and on these forums think you are an idiot. You really are and I hope your stupidity gets cured someday.

[Seizer]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but you're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. The Bay Area is what happens when you generate an enormous amount of wealth, but you don't have fiscal policy in place to redistribute it. This is the end game of conservative economic policy, and it's as dysfunctional as you would imagine.

If it weren't in SF, it would be somewhere else. The real issue is that we've been gutting the top marginal tax rate since the 80s because conservative politicians managed to sell people on the idiotic notion that slashing taxes is great for society. Coupled with the fact that stock buybacks were made legal in the Reagan era, and this is what you're left with. The Bay Area can't enact the kind of fiscal policy necessary to redistribute its immense wealth properly, and people are drowning in inflation as a result. California is trying to do its best, but the reality is that business interests are still trumping (har) the interests of normal people even here. (I'm looking at you Ellis Act)

This is a cautionary tale of conservative economic policy. You either end up bankrupt like Kansas, or you end up with massive poverty rates like SF. If the top marginal tax rates were still in the 70s, and if stock buybacks were still considered corrupt (which they are), SF would look like a very different place.

There's a reason why so many of us keep harping on the subject of taxes and income inequality. It's not "just" about doing the moral thing, it's also about enacting necessary policy.

You really think policies put into place by Diane Feinstein and Willie Brown had no way of shaping what San Francisco is like today? I mean weren’t they both pro development, transforming regular neighborhoods into yuppie bastions, where average workers could no longer afford to live?

Dunning-Kruger had to have studied where you work.

[time4fun]

You really think policies put into place by Diane Feinstein and Willie Brown had no way of shaping what San Francisco is like today? I mean weren’t they both pro development, transforming regular neighborhoods into yuppie bastions, where average workers could no longer afford to live?

Dunning-Kruger had to have studied where you work.

As I said- there is plenty of blame to go around. It's clear that a lot of the urban planning in SF prioritized businesses over affordable housing, but ultimately even that only has so much effect. San Francisco is just a piece of the larger Bay Area- all of which suffers from the same rampant inflation and income inequality despite not being quite as tightly packed as SF. In fact, the same dynamics are in play in several non-California cities where tech has taken over as a dominant industry.

So focusing on mayors of SF (especially as far back as the 70s and 80s) makes your Dunning-Kruger comment quite ironic, to say the least.

[Neveragain]

As I said- there is plenty of blame to go around. It's clear that a lot of the urban planning in SF prioritized businesses over affordable housing, but ultimately even that only has so much effect. San Francisco is just a piece of the larger Bay Area- all of which suffers from the same rampant inflation and income inequality despite not being quite as tightly packed as SF. In fact, the same dynamics are in play in several non-California cities where tech has taken over as a dominant industry.

So focusing on mayors of SF (especially as far back as the 70s and 80s) makes your Dunning-Kruger comment quite ironic, to say the least.

What's it like paying ridiculous amounts of money for home to trample over piles of human shit and hypodermic needles?

What's it like knowing that you're a part of the problem? Surely you have taken some of the peasants into your home?

[Wrathbringer]

As I said- there is plenty of blame to go around. It's clear that a lot of the urban planning in SF prioritized businesses over affordable housing, but ultimately even that only has so much effect. San Francisco is just a piece of the larger Bay Area- all of which suffers from the same rampant inflation and income inequality despite not being quite as tightly packed as SF. In fact, the same dynamics are in play in several non-California cities where tech has taken over as a dominant industry.

So focusing on mayors of SF (especially as far back as the 70s and 80s) makes your Dunning-Kruger comment quite ironic, to say the least.

You're retarded.

[Fortybox]

What's it like paying ridiculous amounts of money for home to trample over piles of human shit and hypodermic needles?

What's it like knowing that you're a part of the problem? Surely you have taken some of the peasants into your home?

I'm sure she is volunteering 70-90% of her income to help fix this problem.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure she is volunteering 70-90% of her income to help fix this problem.

Every time she goes on one of her rants about her not being taxed enough I always ask her how much money she gives to the homeless in her city, because surely it must be at least 20-30% of her income. Strangely enough she has never answered this question.

[Fortybox]

Every time she goes on one of her rants about her not being taxed enough I always ask her how much money she gives to the homeless in her city, because surely it must be at least 20-30% of her income. Strangely enough she has never answered this question.

That's the thing about socialism. The politians who advocate for it strangely are the ones with all the money.

It's about control. She has a major axe to grind.