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.
These numbers are outdated... Why are you making a 2014 argument with 2009 numbers? California's unemployment today is 8%. In 2009 America was still digging itself out of the mess was GW...
No matter what you think, the fact that 13 of the 15 states mentioned above who TAKE the most money for WELFARE are BLUE states!!!!
some of the biggest welfare states....new york and california and mississippi...all very much liberal states....and missi also has the highest black population in the country
new york SPENDS more per capita on WELFARE than almost anyother state, 'blue' states like NY have more welfare recipients than 10 of those 'red' states combined..they are number 8
top 7 states per capita of welfare
1. DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA (wash DC)
2. GUAM
3. Rhode Island
4. Tenn
5. california
6. Maine
7. alaska
8. new york
highest dropout rates....nevada and illinois...very blue
texas also PRODUCES 40% of the ENERGY that California USES...yet
cali is the second biggest carbon emiter.....behind...texas
btw I am a new yorker (a northerner)
the problem is the democrats and their love for welfare and other social programs...the more they push these programs the more the wealthier states will pay for the poorer states. the more they push the "tax the rich" mantra, the more the rich will be paying for the poor.......NJ has more people that are considered wealthy, than it has people below the poverty line...a state like SC has more workingclass and poor than it has wealthy.....its simple math....and there is a simple solution,,, vote out the tax and spend liberals
Last edited by SHABAZZ310; 03-23-2014 at 08:14 AM..
To answer your question, no. It's not fair to the poor that people who are well off get to live in nice mansions while the poor have to live in regular homes. It's housing inequality. Obama needs raise property taxes on housing to help supplement the housing cost for the poor. The poor and homeless deserve to live in mansions too.
It's not everyone's right to live in a mansion. But I do believe we should do more about the homeless situation here. With the amount we give away to Egypt and Israel in aid alone, we could build more homeless shelters and provide mental healthcare to those that are homeless...
To answer your question, no. It's not fair to the poor that people who are well off get to live in nice mansions while the poor have to live in regular homes. It's housing inequality. Obama needs raise property taxes on housing to help supplement the housing cost for the poor. The poor and homeless deserve to live in mansions too.
Property taxes belong to the local government.
If you want higher property taxes to build homes for the poor then go to your next city or county public meeting and say so.
How many of those 58,000 jobs (if you trust California to tell the truth) are government employee jobs?
For the brain damaged or for people just interested in the truth, California has the lowest percentage of population employed in state or local government jobs. Yes, much of this has to do with a very large population but it is still true. RWNJ NEVER tell the truth. They're so ignorant and misinformed they are ALWAYS wrong.
You're so full of absolutes (NEVER, ALWAYS), I'm sure people flock to hear what you have to say. And of course the obligatory liberal name calling shows just how intelligent and open minded you are.
Now, where can I find the data to back up your claim? After living in California for 58 years, I am well aware of the growth in government employment. So unless they laid off tens of thousands of employees in the last year, and we all would have heard about it if they did, California still struggles to meet the financial demands of the government employee salaries, insurance coverage, generous pensions & other perks. The recalled Governor Davis really stuck it to the California taxpayers when he guaranteed the taxpayers would pick up the costs that the unions couldn't cover. And those amounts are astronomical due to the number of employees who are and will be collecting. So the last thing California needs is more people dependent on the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
For the brain damaged or for people just interested in the truth, California has the lowest percentage of population employed in state or local government jobs. Yes, much of this has to do with a very large population but it is still true. RWNJ NEVER tell the truth. They're so ignorant and misinformed they are ALWAYS wrong.
"Anyway, so much for "welfare" states. Most blue states are givers or revenue neutral. Most red states are receivers:"
The chart your link led to... It's a made-up, non-sense piece of propaganda that compares data that doesn't mean anything when compared. Every tax-payer benefit listed on that chart is money going to social welfare programs. Most tax-payers are willing to help people who truly can't help themselves and people who are temporarily struggling. But tax payer benefits are things like keeping roads in good shape (something California is at the bottom of the nationwide list for), maintaining our cities, counties & the state, i.e. bringing clean fresh water to the state, ensuring the electric grid is in good standing, educating our children, law enforcement, fire fighters & more. Handing out welfare & food stamps to those who refuse to work, who are looking to gain the system, who break our laws & then demand hand-outs is not benefiting the tax-payers nor the tax-takers in the big picture of things.
Welfare states give out other people's money. The only way states can hand out money & benefits is to take it from those who are generating income. If you work, you get paid and you have some purchase power. If you don't work & you're "waiting" for your hand-out, you are in a position whereby you can't afford to pay for a mansion. Geeze! It's not rocket science. Work= pay= pay your bills. Don't work = no pay = do not pay your bills. Why should someone who doesn't work deserve to live in a mansion... at someone else's expense?
Since December 2007, the average weekly wage in Texas has stayed steady at $790, while the national average has risen from $750 to $790 and the average in New York (where, remember, the unemployment rate is similar) has risen from $870 to $900. Living expenses may be different in the two states, so the crucial point is of wage stagnation vs. a modest increase.
Texas has more people earning the federal minimum wage or less than any other state and is tied with Mississippi for the highest percentage of minimum-wage workers. New York follows Texas and Mississippi by three percentage points.
And yet somehow, states like Nevada, which is right next to California, is still able to provide for the citizens in the state without raking the **** out of them in taxes..
nooo... liberals say you must pay high taxes or you will starve and DIE..
Could that be because Nevada outsources their needy?
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.
