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)
 
Old 06-10-2009, 01:00 PM
 
4,070 posts, read 5,603,646 times
Reputation: 2034

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Are those numbers per capita or gross?
Says right in the title that it is not gross. It is Births per 1000 people ages 15-19. That would be per capita for that age group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2009, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Kentucky/ Displaced Texan
3,105 posts, read 3,288,713 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Well, I'm not sure how cattle come into this, but without gauging it on a per capita basis it just becomes an issue of population rather than any meaningful statistic. It'd be like saying there are more teen pregnancies in New York City than there are in Nome, Alaska. Means nothing. But if 5 out of 10 teens in Nome get pregnant and only 2 out of 10 in NYC do, then it begins to speak to something.

Because your stats are live births, so you completely ignore teenage pregnancies that happen but for some reason the baby does not make it. To me thats illogical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 01:04 PM
 
4,070 posts, read 5,603,646 times
Reputation: 2034
  1. Nevada (113)
  2. Arizona (104)
  3. Mississippi (103)
  4. New Mexico (103)
  5. Texas (101)
  6. Florida (97)
  7. California (96)
  8. Georgia (95)
  9. North Carolina (95)
  10. Arkansas (93)
Prenancies per 1000 people (ages 15-19)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 01:04 PM
 
78,326 posts, read 60,517,579 times
Reputation: 49617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
It's not only that. Take a look at which states are sucking off the teat of the Federal Government the most. . .

For every Federal tax dollar put in by these states, they take more than a dollar back in Federal spending in their state. I'll color code them to make it easier. Here are the top 25, ranked in order:
  1. New Mexico
  2. Mississippi
  3. Alaska
  4. Louisiana
  5. West Virginia
  6. North Dakota
  7. Alabama
  8. South Dakota
  9. Kentucky
  10. Virginia
  11. Montana
  12. Hawaii
  13. Maine
  14. Arkansas
  15. Oklahoma
  16. South Carolina
  17. Missouri
  18. Maryland
  19. Tennessee
  20. Idaho
  21. Arizona
  22. Kansas
  23. Wyoming
  24. Iowa
  25. Nebraska
You want to know why so many of the red states are "sporting surpluses", perhaps it's because they're not supporting themselves, I'm supporting them.

And these are the people who whine about welfare.



The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times
Lets say you put a nuclear waste depository in the desert of Nevada and ship in waste from all over the US. As a result, Nevada gets billions of dollars of federal money annually for construction, maintenance etc. Your *analysis* assumes that the other states are getting no benefit from paying Nevada for storing nuclear waste there.

I'm sure a lot of the money is related to military spending (bases) and farming (food production). These would both be "goods" that would create benefits outside of the host state.

This is a concept that is covered in some economics texts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 01:19 PM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,699,990 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergoingback View Post
Says right in the title that it is not gross. It is Births per 1000 people ages 15-19. That would be per capita for that age group.
If you look at the post quoted in my post, you will see that it does not say it in the title (the other one does).

This is the one to which I was referring:

If we go off the 2008 election of red state blue state the list is VERY interesting in teen pregnancy.

1. Nevada- Blue state
4. New Mexico- Blue state
6. Florida Blue State
7. California- Blue State
8. North Carolina- Blue State
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 01:21 PM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,699,990 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packersnut21 View Post
Because your stats are live births, so you completely ignore teenage pregnancies that happen but for some reason the baby does not make it. To me thats illogical.
I don't have any stats. I was just trying to understand your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Kentucky/ Displaced Texan
3,105 posts, read 3,288,713 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
I don't have any stats. I was just trying to understand your post.
You posted repeatedly the live birth stats, thus ignoring the actual number of teens pregnancies. Just because the baby was not born does not mean the teen did not get pregnant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 02:09 PM
 
1,054 posts, read 2,155,230 times
Reputation: 876
How did this turn into a teen pregnancy thread?

What does teen pregnancy rate has to do with the original topic of red state vs blue states economics?

Why did we allow the liberals to sidetrack this thread to some irrelevant non-sense.

Lets get back on topic and ignore the irrelevant babble about teen birth rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Center City Philadelphia
1,099 posts, read 4,617,863 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by big mean bear View Post
People are LEAVING the traditional blue states (Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania) and moving to areas that have jobs and lower taxes (Texas, Arizona, Florida, Tennessee).

You couldn't be more wrong.
Pennsylvania's population is growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2009, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Kentucky/ Displaced Texan
3,105 posts, read 3,288,713 times
Reputation: 1024
It would seem alot of people are heading to Red States.

Quote:
Six of the 10 fastest-growing states from 2007 to 2008 were Rocky Mountain states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. Three others lined the South Atlantic coast: Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Link (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/013049.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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. The time now is 08:34 PM.

© 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