Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure about that one. If you look at the super poor in certain areas of the country, they're more concerned about which candidate is closer to the Lord than their actual political policies.
Seeing as Obama is actually just an Islamic sleeper-agent who's trying to bring the country down from the inside, I doubt the super-poor voted for him.
I guess I'll just post this article from 2005 that suggests San Francisco-San Jose CSA has the most millionaires (as defined by assets) than New York City. SF-SJ is at 5%.
Number of millionaires rises in Bay Area, U.S. and world / Report finds rich getting richer by an average of 8.2% (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/10/BUG2VD678F1.DTL&type=business - broken link)
What's it matter anyway? This thread is about billionaires, and San Francisco has more billionaires per capita than NYC.
Perhaps, next we can take another arbitrary number like $789,546 and see how many people are above that limit in each area--then whoever is first we can declare the wealthiest and the best.
wow, poor ainulianle. getting all flustered for nothing. but.....surprise, you're wrong again. you might also want to find more recent information?
this was in the most recent wall street journal, if you missed the article.
and if you notice, new york city is losing millionaires at the lowest pace from all of the above cities. and yes, and this is from the IRS....and actually current unlike your outdated and incorrect information which stated that bay area millionaires are fastest growing. lol.
so what have you learned today? today, you learned new york city metro has far more millionaires in sheer numbers and has a higher percentage of millionaires than san francisco's metro.
now do you want me to debunk your other outlandish lies and publish the amounts of millionaires in the excluded msa (connecticut)? If we add the ct counties, we can add SJ and then but then surprise....nyc still comes at top in terms of sheer numbers and percentages.
wow, poor ainulianle. getting all flustered for nothing. but.....surprise, you're wrong again. you might also want to find more recent information?
this was in the most recent wall street journal, if you missed the article.
and if you notice, new york city is losing millionaires at the lowest pace from all of the above cities. and yes, and this is from the IRS....and actually current unlike your outdated and incorrect information which stated that bay area millionaires are fastest growing. lol.
so what have you learned today? today, you learned new york city metro has far more millionaires in sheer numbers and has a higher percentage of millionaires than san francisco's metro.
now do you want me to debunk your other outlandish lies and publish the amounts of millionaires in the excluded msa (connecticut)? If we add the ct counties, we can add SJ and then but then surprise....nyc still comes at top in terms of sheer numbers and percentages.
So what this is like the third time you've cited the exact same information? Repeating yourself over and over again to different questions simply doesn't cut it. Lol indeed.
BTW, I'm not even really arguing that SF has more millionaires, I'm just waiting for you to cite something in support of your claims. So far the only thing I've seen is the same figures for unusually defined metros.
I'm not sure about that one. If you look at the super poor in certain areas of the country, they're more concerned about which candidate is closer to the Lord than their actual political policies.
Seeing as Obama is actually just an Islamic sleeper-agent who's trying to bring the country down from the inside, I doubt the super-poor voted for him.
I'm not sure about that one. If you look at the super poor in certain areas of the country, they're more concerned about which candidate is closer to the Lord than their actual political policies.
Seeing as Obama is actually just an Islamic sleeper-agent who's trying to bring the country down from the inside, I doubt the super-poor voted for him.
Actually, only about 40% of the poorest voters (bottom 20%) voted Republican for Bush; while 55% of the wealthiest 20% voted for him.
And actually TomDot is right...Dems are 60% less likely to have a 4 year college degree than the Republicans.
Need I also mention that those with post-grad degrees are equally likely to vote Republican as they are to vote Democrat?
Actually, only about 40% of the poorest voters (bottom 20%) voted Republican for Bush; while 55% of the wealthiest 20% voted for him.
And actually TomDot is right...Dems are 60% less likely to have a 4 year college degree than the Republicans.
Need I also mention that those with post-grad degrees are equally likely to vote Republican as they are to vote Democrat?
I should clarify my own statement....61% of the college educated are Republicans. So, 22% of men are educated Democrats while 60% more are college educated Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
