For the Poor Geography is a Matter of Life and Death

[smb]

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?

Obviously not since they are dying off at third world rates. The argument posed is does welfare help the poor. At least in the matter of life and death it apparently does. The correlation is strong. The transverse of that argument made by conservatives is that growth rate in business will help the poor. Well TX has an over 1% advantage on growth rate over CA and a child poverty rate that is higher than CA. Add this to the correlation between welfare amounts and people dying at third world rates and it punches a huge hole in the conservative ideology that growth is better than welfare. That is the point.

 

[smb]

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?

You are making my point. TX is the best state to do business in. CA is a difficult state to do business in. This has led to a CA growth rate of just above 2%. This has also led a TX growth rate of over 3%. CA has the highest per capita welfare spending with the highest rates of people receiving healthcare. They are also one of the best if not the best state to live if you are poor and want to live. TX on the other hand is the worst to state live in if you are poor. If you are poor in TX you apparently still remain poor despite the growth rate because the percentage of people in poverty in TX is greater than the people in poverty in CA. If you are poor in TX you don't receive hardly any welfare so if you are poor you are dying off at higher rates than in some third world countries.

You keep claiming things that fit right into my point. The more growth your state has does NOT correlate to helping the poor in any way. The more welfare spending your state has the healthier the poor people are. They might not be getting richer but they aren't getting richer in high growth rate states either but they sure are dying much quicker. At least if you poor in CA you may stay poor but you live. If you poor in TX you remain poor and die much younger.

 

[Erod]

Obviously not since they are dying off at third world rates. The argument posed is does welfare help the poor. At least in the matter of life and death it apparently does. The correlation is strong. The transverse of that argument made by conservatives is that growth rate in business will help the poor. Well TX has an over 1% advantage on growth rate over CA and a child poverty rate that is higher than CA. Add this to the correlation between welfare amounts and people dying at third world rates and it punches a huge hole in the conservative ideology that growth is better than welfare. That is the point.

"...it punches a huge hole in the conservative ideology that growth is better than welfare."

LOL, liberals are so cute when they're little.

I mean, why have growth when you can have....WELFARE!!!! YIPEEEEE!

 

[smb]

"...it punches a huge hole in the conservative ideology that growth is better than welfare."

LOL, liberals are so cute when they're little.

I mean, why have growth when you can have....WELFARE!!!! YIPEEEEE!

The fact is you can have both. You state that CA is the worst state for business. Yet CA managed 2.3% growth. Is that great...no but it is sustainable. What it punches a hole in the ideology that all you need is growth. That is only true if you want to live in third world conditions. If you want to live in decent conditions you must couple growth with a social welfare net. Otherwise you end up like Rwanda or worse.

 

[Erod]

The fact is you can have both. You state that CA is the worst state for business. Yet CA managed 2.3% growth. Is that great...no but it is sustainable. What it punches a hole in the ideology that all you need is growth. That is only true if you want to live in third world conditions. If you want to live in decent conditions you must couple growth with a social welfare net. Otherwise you end up like Rwanda or worse.

Are you factoring in that a LOT of people have left California in droves?

People are flooding into Texas from all parts of the country because the economy is terrific and jobs are available.

 

[smb]

Are you factoring in that a LOT of people have left California in droves?

People are flooding into Texas from all parts of the country because the economy is terrific and jobs are available.

Factually inaccurate. CA population rate is still growing.

 

[Erod]

Factually inaccurate. CA population rate is still growing.

Not because people are moving there. It just has a very high birth rate, which makes sense given the advantages of having welfare babies.

 

[Fenton]

You are making my point. TX is the best state to do business in. CA is a difficult state to do business in. This has led to a CA growth rate of just above 2%. This has also led a TX growth rate of over 3%. CA has the highest per capita welfare spending with the highest rates of people receiving healthcare. They are also one of the best if not the best state to live if you are poor and want to live. TX on the other hand is the worst to state live in if you are poor. If you are poor in TX you apparently still remain poor despite the growth rate because the percentage of people in poverty in TX is greater than the people in poverty in CA. If you are poor in TX you don't receive hardly any welfare so if you are poor you are dying off at higher rates than in some third world countries.

You keep claiming things that fit right into my point. The more growth your state has does NOT correlate to helping the poor in any way. The more welfare spending your state has the healthier the poor people are. They might not be getting richer but they aren't getting richer in high growth rate states either but they sure are dying much quicker. At least if you poor in CA you may stay poor but you live. If you poor in TX you remain poor and die much younger.

So California helps the poor by creating MORE poor ?

Texas hurts the poor by employing unemployed Californians ?

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

 

[Fenton]

Factually inaccurate. CA population rate is still growing.

Can do this ALL DAY....
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/great-california-exodus-closer-look-5853.html

 

[smb]

So California helps the poor by creating MORE poor ?

Texas hurts the poor by employing unemployed Californians ?

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

CA is not creating more poor that is not factually accurate. Their overall poverty rate has remained constant or slightly dropped is right at the national average.

TX has such wonderful growth and their poverty rate has more than CA's and has remained constant for years. Again your points are completely dispelled by the facts.

 

[smb]

Not because people are moving there. It just has a very high birth rate, which makes sense given the advantages of having welfare babies.

Again factually incorrect.

California's Population (PPIC Publication)

People are moving out of CA but they are still moving in at higher rates than they are moving out.

 

[smb]

Can do this ALL DAY....
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/great-california-exodus-closer-look-5853.html

So can I.

California's Population (PPIC Publication)

 

[Fenton]

CA is not creating more poor that is not factually accurate. Their overall poverty rate has remained constant or slightly dropped is right at the national average.

TX has such wonderful growth and their poverty rate has more than CA's and has remained constant for years. Again your points are completely dispelled by the facts.

When you factor in something as highly relevant as Cost of living, California has the Highest poverty rate in the Nation

Higher than Mississippi even.

You apparently haven't been reading the Census data Ive been posting.

Why ? Because it contradicts your riridiculous narratives ??

 

[smb]

So can I.

California's Population (PPIC Publication)

Your are talking through 2010 a little aged data. Mine goes to 2014 and shows that people are still moving to CA in higher numbers than are leaving.

 

[Top Cat]

The lifeblood of liberalism is to keep the poor fully dependent and hopeless so as to never lose their support.

 

[smb]

When you factor in something as highly relevant as Cost of living, California has the Highest poverty rate in the Nation

Higher than Mississippi even.

You apparently haven't been reading the Census data Ive been posting.

Why ? Because they contradict your riridiculous narratives ??

No they don't. The high cost of living is an average. If you actually lived in the state you would know that there are many ways around the high cost of living. I cannot afford to live in San Diego because I work for a living. So...I don't live in San Diego. I love to visit but I cannot afford to live there so I don't. Other people who cannot afford to live in San Diego like my brother opt to live out in Valley 40 minutes inland from San Diego. There he can afford to live and still be close to San Diego. This goes on everywhere in CA. We choose where to live partially based on the cost of living. Also even in San Diego proper there are places that affordable. Not in neighborhoods I would live but they are affordable.

 

[Fenton]

Your are talking through 2010 a little aged data. Mine goes to 2014 and shows that people are still moving to CA in higher numbers than are leaving.

No yours goes to 2013. read it again.

 

[Fenton]

No they don't. The high cost of living is an average. If you actually lived in the state you would know that there are many ways around the high cost of living. I cannot afford to live in San Diego because I work for a living. So...I don't live in San Diego. I love to visit but I cannot afford to live there so I don't. Other people who cannot afford to live in San Diego like my brother opt to live out in Valley 40 minutes inland from San Diego. There he can afford to live and still be close to San Diego. This goes on everywhere in CA. We choose where to live partially based on the cost of living. Also even in San Diego proper there are places that affordable. Not in neighborhoods I would live but they are affordable.

You need to argue with Huffpo and the Census bureau
California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation, According To U.S. Census Bureau

 

[smb]

You need to argue with Huffpo and the Census bureau
California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation, According To U.S. Census Bureau

I don't need to argue with anyone. I provided a link to the study they cite from the Annenberg Foundation. It show no such thing that is claimed in those stories. The Annenberg Foundation study clearly indicates that CA poverty rate is 23%...the national average. TX poverty rate is 25% clearly above the national average. Both states have had stable poverty rates over the last few years.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

...nice, except that your point is inconsistent with the premise of the original post, which is the poor live in red states.

No its not. Read his post again.

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.

.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.

It's common knowledge liberal politicians want to keep as many people dependent on government as possible. What was it that LBJ said about making those ni****s vote democrat for the next 200 years?

 

[smb]

No its not. Read his post again.





It's common knowledge liberal politicians want to keep as many people dependent on government as possible. What was it that LBJ said about making those ni****s vote democrat for the next 200 years?

Quite the dubious quote. Comes from an extremely doubtful source and is highly unlikely.

Yeah liberal sit around in secret meetings at midnight to come up with ways to keep people poor. Just like conservatives have secret meeting to come up with policies to kill them.

I'll see your reductio ad absurdum and raise you an appeal to ridicule.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Quite the dubious quote. Comes from an extremely doubtful source and is highly unlikely.

Yeah liberal sit around in secret meetings at midnight to come up with ways to keep people poor. Just like conservatives have secret meeting to come up with policies to kill them.

I'll see your reductio ad absurdum and raise you an appeal to ridicule.

Highly unlikely? That's almost humorous...

 

[chuckiechan]

No they don't. The high cost of living is an average. If you actually lived in the state you would know that there are many ways around the high cost of living. I cannot afford to live in San Diego because I work for a living. So...I don't live in San Diego. I love to visit but I cannot afford to live there so I don't. Other people who cannot afford to live in San Diego like my brother opt to live out in Valley 40 minutes inland from San Diego. There he can afford to live and still be close to San Diego. This goes on everywhere in CA. We choose where to live partially based on the cost of living. Also even in San Diego proper there are places that affordable. Not in neighborhoods I would live but they are affordable.

You get out in the central California valley, east of HW99, you see shacks powered by extension cords. There are no building inspectors and whole area is on welfare and cash work.

One report $945 per capita? We're talking millions of illegals on the taxpayers dime.

 

[smb]

Highly unlikely? That's almost humorous...

So because someone is caught saying a word in an highly agitated state during a tumultuous time automatically makes them guilty of saying it in other circumstances???????

Translation...there is no evidence he ever said that and the only suggestion that he did comes from gossiper reporting it to a gossip columnist and I want to believe it.

Got it...move along.

 

[smb]

You get out in the central California valley, east of HW99, you see shacks powered by extension cords. There are no building inspectors and whole area is on welfare and cash work.

One report $945 per capita? We're talking millions of illegals on the taxpayers dime.

Wrong again. I lived in the central valley for over 2 years. Your exaggeration and ridiculous notions are completely false. Try again.

It shows you live in Roseville. Have you ever left the American River Basin to find out how the rest of peons live? I lived in the heart of the central valley in Modesto for 2 years. I traveled up, down, over and around the central valley. Your contention is a fantasy cooked up by people who want to make you afraid. Travel south Kingsburgh, Cowchilla out to Riverbank and Manteca and tell me how people live. Get out of your closeted little upper middle class suburbia of Sacramento and see CA.