Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Isn't it the time to rethink that conservative "liberals are anti-business" claim as it is
Yes. Liberal socio-economic policies work as evidenced by the richest us states 19 63.33%
No. Only conservative policies work and Alabama and Mississippi are an exception 9 30.00%
I don't know. Need to find out more about the issue. 2 6.67%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2014, 04:22 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 824,196 times
Reputation: 142

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Actually no it doesnt, because they PERCENTAGE of the residents is higher, not just the numbers.

California is one of 11 states that actually has more people on welfare than they do that work


Wouldnt more people on welfare than working equate to poverty?
No. Not all the poor are on welfare.

 
Old 09-16-2014, 04:27 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,876,867 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
Me. too. C'mon. The most affluent US states are liberal while the most impoverished are conservative yet conservatives want to give economic advice to everybody...
You are not even consistant on your own parameters..

Californias unemployment rate is far higher than others, which of course would mean more poverty
Californias welfare rate is far higher
Californias DEBT is far higher etc

You stand here and act like liberals got their **** together and they DONT..
 
Old 09-16-2014, 04:28 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,876,867 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
No. Not all the poor are on welfare.
yes, only about 1/2 of californias qualified poor receive food stamps etc, the other half havent bothered..

Whats your argument again?
 
Old 09-16-2014, 09:41 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 9,975,225 times
Reputation: 7691
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
Me. too. C'mon. The most affluent US states are liberal while the most impoverished are conservative yet conservatives want to give economic advice to everybody...
Again, states cannot be affluent or impoverished nor can a state be conservative or liberal, even the most left or right leaning state (based on whatever election you choose as an example) will still be relatively close to 50/50 conservative/liberal. There are no states in this country which are anywhere near 80/20 one way or the other.

If you look at individuals the most affluent people in this country are typically conservatives, you may find a few CEOs who are liberals but they're outnumbered by conservatives who understand economics and business. The 1%ers that liberals claim to hate are mostly conservative, not liberal.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 09:56 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 824,196 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Again, states cannot be affluent or impoverished nor can a state be conservative or liberal, even the most left or right leaning state (based on whatever election you choose as an example) will still be relatively close to 50/50 conservative/liberal. There are no states in this country which are anywhere near 80/20 one way or the other.


And again the same rehashed absurdities. No, states can be affluent and poor. Just like countries.
There are poor countries and rich countries, poor states and rich states. There are traditionally liberal states and traditionally conservative states.

Traditionally liberal states tend to be affluent, traditionally conservative states are the biggest recipients of federal funds, that come from the affluent liberal states by the way.

Look at this table, it will explain a lot:

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 09-17-2014, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,121 posts, read 3,079,446 times
Reputation: 2311
To be fair, my favorite blue state isn't doing so well. Oregon has higher than average unemployment and underemployment rates, a below aver labor force participation rate, and the schools do a lousy job of graduating their students.
 
Old 09-17-2014, 09:38 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,876,867 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
And again the same rehashed absurdities. No, states can be affluent and poor. Just like countries.
There are poor countries and rich countries, poor states and rich states. There are traditionally liberal states and traditionally conservative states.

Traditionally liberal states tend to be affluent, traditionally conservative states are the biggest recipients of federal funds, that come from the affluent liberal states by the way.

Look at this table, it will explain a lot:

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ok, if we buy your thought process that states can be affluent just like they can be poor, then wouldnt we be looking at the income/expenses, and assets vs liablitiies of the states, not those who live there?

And then wouldnt California be then considered poor, given their hundreds of billions of dollars in states?

What you are trying to do is argue that people are rich who live in the projects because they live in an area that have affluent individuals living next door.
 
Old 09-17-2014, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,121 posts, read 3,079,446 times
Reputation: 2311
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
ok, if we buy your thought process that states can be affluent just like they can be poor, then wouldnt we be looking at the income/expenses, and assets vs liablitiies of the states, not those who live there?

And then wouldnt California be then considered poor, given their hundreds of billions of dollars in states?

What you are trying to do is argue that people are rich who live in the projects because they live in an area that have affluent individuals living next door.
Aren't you saying that the workers in relatively poor Central California must be paying ridiculous rents because that's what California averages out after including the wealthy areas?

I live in Syracuse, New York and housing here is cheaper than in Ohio. But because New York City is expensive, all of New York gets deemed unaffordable.
 
Old 09-17-2014, 09:52 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 9,975,225 times
Reputation: 7691
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
ok, if we buy your thought process that states can be affluent just like they can be poor, then wouldnt we be looking at the income/expenses, and assets vs liablitiies of the states, not those who live there?

And then wouldnt California be then considered poor, given their hundreds of billions of dollars in states?

What you are trying to do is argue that people are rich who live in the projects because they live in an area that have affluent individuals living next door.
It doesn't matter how much basic logic you use with this fool, he'll spin it over and over and over again because he's just here trolling. He's a past banned member under a new user name who is here to troll, just give up.
 
Old 09-17-2014, 01:48 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 824,196 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
It doesn't matter how much basic logic you use with this fool, he'll spin it over and over and over again because he's just here trolling. He's a past banned member under a new user name who is here to troll, just give up.



Just because you don't get to understand something it doesn't mean it is stupid or illogical. Only five years old kids believe that saying "adults are stupid".
Yes, the Red States are generally mooching off the Blue states. There are numbers to prove it.


This is from Wikipedia:

[b]Several commentators have pointed out that the states that benefit the most by federal spending are the very states whose populations tend to vote for leaders who promise to reduce federal spending, while those that benefit the least from large government vote for politicians who promise to make it even larger at their expense. In other words, Democratic-leaning states tend to be net contributors to the federal budget while Republican-leaning states are more often net recipients of federal spending. Various explanations for this seemingly contradictory situation exist.[3][/]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder...Federal_Budget


And more here at tax foundation, bloomberg and BEA


Tax Foundation http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-do...ing-not-others,
Alternet http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/20...-federal-taxes,
Bloomberg Blame FDR and LBJ for 'Moocher' Paradox in Red States http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ed-states.html
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regi...df/gsp0614.pdf


Enjoy. Lol
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top