* 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.
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...
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
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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
...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.
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.
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.
Ah, yes. Conservatives kill poor people. We sit around in secret meetings and devise such evil plans.
Good gawd, you people will believe anything.
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.
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."
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.
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..."
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.
Only person who brought race into any of this was you :shrug:
Ah, yes. Conservatives kill poor people. We sit around in secret meetings and devise such evil plans.
Good gawd, you people will believe anything.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?