• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For the Poor Geography is a Matter of Life and Death

S

smb

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
949
Reaction score
273
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

You may have to have subscription to the NYTimes to read the article but it is worth posting.

I always here conservatives whine about how liberal always say that conservatives don't care about the poor. That is conservatives that really care about and for the poor and that liberals just want to keep them poor. The correlation between conservative run states and liberal run states on life expectancy of the poor cannot be more obvious. Many places in the very deep red states have worse life expectancies for the poor than places like Rwanda and other third world countries. However I keep hearing that it is liberals that want are making the U.S. a third world country. Go figure...

life.JPG

gov.JPG
 
* Map shows what life expectancy would be if every place had the same share of Hispanics and Asians (who tend to live longer than whites) and blacks (who tend to live shorter lives than whites), and the same share of men and women.
Life expectancies are calculated assuming the chance of dying at a given age does not change, a calculation known as period life expectancy. Data covers 2001 to 2014, and excludes people with no earnings at age 40.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what to make of that *.

smb said:
I always here conservatives whine about how liberal always say that conservatives don't care about the poor. That is conservatives that really care about and for the poor and that liberals just want to keep them poor. The correlation between conservative run states and liberal run states on life expectancy of the poor cannot be more obvious. Many places in the very deep red states have worse life expectancies for the poor than places like Rwanda and other third world countries. However I keep hearing that it is liberals that want are making the U.S. a third world country. Go figure...
Click to expand...

Rwanda has an avg life expectancy of 64, while the map shows the lowest avg life expectancy of 76. They also have a table showing the worst of the worst, which is Gary,Ind. @ 74.2
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
Not really sure what to make of that *.



Rwanda has an avg life expectancy of 64, while the map shows the lowest avg life expectancy of 76. They also have a table showing the worst of the worst, which is Gary,Ind. @ 74.2
Click to expand...

The discrepancy is that the life expectancy of 64 for Rwanda is life expectancy from birth. The NYT article takes life expectancy of people at 40. It eliminates the variables of infant mortality, violent and accidental death rates which predominantly occurs in younger age groups.

I should think the what to make of this is obvious. Policy decisions have real consequences. If you cut healthcare access for the poor by doing things like, cutting Medicaid, cutting county health services, cutting planned parenthood funding, cutting state supplements to food stamps, cutting state welfare initiatives etc. etc. it has a direct impact on the health of your population.

While Gary, Ind might be the worst city the worst state by far is Texas. The best states by comparison are CA, Oregon and WA. Compare what CA, OR and WA spend on healthcare for the poor and what Texas spends. you will see that CA, OR and WA spend over twice as much as Texas per capita. That is just on Healthcare. Overall welfare spending has even greater gap. Again policies have consequences. We keep being told by conservatives that growth is the key to economic prosperity and the betterment of the poor. TX has 50% more growth than CA, OR or WA but much, much worse record on care for the poor. It is obvious that this punches a huge hole in conservative ideology.
 
The lifeblood of liberalism is to keep the poor fully dependent and hopeless so as to never lose their support. That's the point you're missing. Liberals keeping winning, and the poor keeps getting poorer.
 
Erod said:
The lifeblood of liberalism is to keep the poor fully dependent and hopeless so as to never lose their support. That's the point you're missing. Liberals keeping winning, and the poor keeps getting poorer.
Click to expand...

...nice, except that your point is inconsistent with the premise of the original post, which is the poor live in red states. You ignored the OP and just doubled down on your impressions, which you did not support, suggesting that you prefer to live in ignorance. So as to not let you get away with that, the data set for in the OP suggests completely the opposite of what you propose: as long as Cons keep winning, the poor get poorer.
 
upsideguy said:
...nice, except that your point is inconsistent with the premise of the original post, which is the poor live in red states. You ignored the OP and just doubled down on your impressions, which you did not support, suggesting that you prefer to live in ignorance. So as to not let you get away with that, the data set for in the OP suggests completely the opposite of what you propose: as long as Cons keep winning, the poor get poorer.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the OP is that the poor are still poor, they just die at different rates(~7 year variable) based on where you live, in conjunction with your race and sex. If the state government's had a direct, tangible effect on life expectancy, you would see the map by state, instead, it appears to be at something larger than county level. Again, if it had a direct effect, even with the smaller breakdowns, you wouldn't see states with "large" disparities in the life expectancy(i.e. Florida, Colorodo)
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
The lifeblood of liberalism is to keep the poor fully dependent and hopeless so as to never lose their support. That's the point you're missing. Liberals keeping winning, and the poor keeps getting poorer.
Click to expand...

Apparently when liberals win the poor keep living. When liberals lose the poor are literally dying. If what you say is true and I don't believe it is for a second. But IF it is true I am sure the poor would rather be poor and alive rather than poor and dead.
 
Erod said:
The lifeblood of liberalism is to keep the poor fully dependent and hopeless so as to never lose their support. That's the point you're missing. Liberals keeping winning, and the poor keeps getting poorer.
Click to expand...

A comforting lie many conservatives tell themselves while they cut funding to the poor through assistance programs:

"this will magically get everyone jobs".

But it is a lie nonetheless.
 
smb said:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...hoto-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

You may have to have subscription to the NYTimes to read the article but it is worth posting.

I always here conservatives whine about how liberal always say that conservatives don't care about the poor. That is conservatives that really care about and for the poor and that liberals just want to keep them poor. The correlation between conservative run states and liberal run states on life expectancy of the poor cannot be more obvious. Many places in the very deep red states have worse life expectancies for the poor than places like Rwanda and other third world countries. However I keep hearing that it is liberals that want are making the U.S. a third world country. Go figure...

View attachment 67200077

View attachment 67200080
Click to expand...

California Has Highest Child Poverty Rate In Nation | KPBS
 
upsideguy said:
...nice, except that your point is inconsistent with the premise of the original post, which is the poor live in red states. You ignored the OP and just doubled down on your impressions, which you did not support, suggesting that you prefer to live in ignorance. So as to not let you get away with that, the data set for in the OP suggests completely the opposite of what you propose: as long as Cons keep winning, the poor get poorer.
Click to expand...

Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee
 
smb said:
Apparently when liberals win the poor keep living. When liberals lose the poor are literally dying. If what you say is true and I don't believe it is for a second. But IF it is true I am sure the poor would rather be poor and alive rather than poor and dead.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Conservatives kill poor people. We sit around in secret meetings and devise such evil plans.

Good gawd, you people will believe anything.
 
Jetboogieman said:
A comforting lie many conservatives tell themselves while they cut funding to the poor through assistance programs:

"this will magically get everyone jobs".

But it is a lie nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Paying them off through welfare to keep having kids and regenerating a voting base is willful racism. That's the foundation of liberal communism. The message is, "you're too inferior to do this yourself, but let us help you and make the meanies pay for it."
 
smb said:
Factually incorrect. You should check your sources.

Children in poverty (100 percent poverty) | KIDS COUNT Data Center

While CA has the most children in poverty status it is right on the average for the nation at 23%. There are plenty of states worse off including Texas.

That being said at least in CA the children have programs to minimize the worst effects of the poverty.
Click to expand...

Texas and California only rank high because of the massive number of illegals.

It's the same for schools. There are great school systems in Texas, but the state has so many kids that speak almost no English, it drags the averages down. Texas A&M and Texas are two of the most highly rated public universities in the United States, and they consist almost exclusively of Texas high school graduates. And that doesn't even consider Rice (much like Stanford or Northwestern), SMU, TCU, Southwestern Medical, Baylor, and then the more typical state schools like Texas Tech and others.
 
Erod said:
Paying them off through welfare to keep having kids and regenerating a voting base is willful racism. That's the foundation of liberal communism. The message is, "you're too inferior to do this yourself, but let us help you and make the meanies pay for it."
Click to expand...

And there you have it, the double down lie, it's amazing whether they were part of the conversation or not, black voters are shoved into the welfare debate.

"Oh so you support a social safety net for the nations neediest?"

"Yes I do"

"Well you must just think blacks aren't capable of taking care of themselves you racist scumbag"

"But we weren't even..."
 
smb said:
Factually incorrect. You should check your sources.

Children in poverty (100 percent poverty) | KIDS COUNT Data Center

While CA has the most children in poverty status it is right on the average for the nation at 23%. There are plenty of states worse off including Texas.

That being said at least in CA the children have programs to minimize the worst effects of the poverty.
Click to expand...

Lol...

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: California has 12% of US Population, 33% of Welfare Recipients; Texas is Best State to Do Business; California, Illinois, and New York the Worst; Where Does Your State Rank?
 
Jetboogieman said:
And there you have it, the double down lie, it's amazing whether they were part of the conversation or not, black voters are shoved into the welfare debate.

"Oh so you support a social safety net for the nations neediest?"

"Yes I do"

"Well you must just think blacks aren't capable of taking care of themselves you racist scumbag"

"But we weren't even..."
Click to expand...

And there you have it, the triple-down lie that liberal elitists use to defend people they would never bother actually talking to.

This from the makers of Affirmative Action, which is a big, fancy program to tell black people they are biologically inferior humans.
 
Erod said:
And there you have it, the triple-down lie that liberal elitists use to defend people they would never bother actually talking to.

This from the makers of Affirmative Action, which is a big, fancy program to tell black people they are biologically inferior humans.
Click to expand...

Only person who brought race into any of this was you :shrug:
 
Jetboogieman said:
Only person who brought race into any of this was you :shrug:
Click to expand...

The inference to poor around here is always racial. It doesn't take a deductive reasoning savant to figure that out about Debate Politics.

And poor in the United States is top 1 percent in most countries. Many poor people in the U.S. carry on just fine without blaming anyone. Unfortunately, we have a party that encourages poverty among their own so they can be the fix-all solution in exchange for their willing dependence.
 
Erod said:
Ah, yes. Conservatives kill poor people. We sit around in secret meetings and devise such evil plans.

Good gawd, you people will believe anything.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.

All you need to do is look at the per capita welfare spending of the states involved. Worst 3 states - Texas, OK, and IN.

TX - $207 per capita per year
OK - $385 per capita per year
IN - $91 per capita per year

CA - $927 per capita per year
OR - $439 per capita per year
WA - $397 per capita per year
 
smb said:
Reductio ad absurdum.

All you need to do is look at the per capita welfare spending of the states involved. Worst 3 states - Texas, OK, and IN.

TX - $207 per capita per year
OK - $385 per capita per year
IN - $91 per capita per year

CA - $927 per capita per year
OR - $439 per capita per year
WA - $397 per capita per year
Click to expand...

So the more free money we give people, the more we care about them? Are you freaking serious?

Maybe fewer people NEED welfare in TX, OK, and IN, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom