We are doomed as a nation. I am really trying not to go into the kitchen and grab some tinfoil.

Here we are in 2015, as polarized a nation since maybe any time since prior to the Civil War, both politically and ideology .

Where we are:



18 Trillion in Debt and counting
Spending 600-800 Billion more per year that we take in
We have not been capable of having honest conversation about immigrants that are not here legally and for the past 12 years
Not sure which is worse:
The Democrats are as close to appointing a socialist / borderline communist (want to see a new Civil War? Elect Sanders)

The Repubs are about to appoint a bad TV Reality Star


The Cold war is heating up again, oh and China.
The worst mix of ingredients you could stir in a pot in the Middle East are now stirring in a pot in the middle east.
The SocialJusticeMafia has usurped discussion and replaced it with a Hashtag
Social Security is on final approach and nobody is dropping the landing gear.
Iran is getting the Bomb (one way or the other)


Those are just some of the high level items I can scratch up in a quick coffee session.

I am really thinking that we have passed peak America. Y'all need to pause and consider this for a moment. If so, we are doomed. More importantly our kids and their kids are doomed.

i agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John, you left out tens of trillions in debt from unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare, and none of that is included in the 18t you mentioned. Tens of trillions more.

John, you left out tens of trillions in debt from unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare, and none of that is included in the 18t you mentioned. Tens of trillions more.

Quick coffee, session, quick.

Besides, I am beginning to think all of that debt is just a lever to get rid of currency in general. Other than pure incompetence, I can see no other endpoint than the elimination of currency, and thus capitalism, to replace with Socialism/Communism, repeat circle back to Civil War.

We're doomed; Eeyore
The sky is falling; Chicken Little
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at Puerto Rico right now. They are about to go under and are screaming at congress to allow them to fall under the same municipal bankruptcy protection that US states have.
So, while we might be up chit creek with a turd for a paddle, remember that the creek is only a foot or so deep. We can just default on everything, claim bankruptcy and start over. Just fire up the printing presses !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We're doomed; Eeyore
The sky is falling; Chicken Little
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right Chris, keep your head in the sand and everything will be fine.

Look at Puerto Rico right now. They are about to go under and are screaming at congress to allow them to fall under the same municipal bankruptcy protection that US states have.
So, while we might be up chit creek with a turd for a paddle, remember that the creek is only a foot or so deep. We can just default on everything, claim bankruptcy and start over. Just fire up the printing presses !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, and China is going to allow that. Well, they might allow that if the USA agrees to retreat from the western pacific and Middle East / Africa. In which case, yes, past Peak America.

Dont forget who got first dibs on Iraqi oil. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dont forget who got first dibs on Iraqi oil. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

China?

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right Chris, keep your head in the sand and everything will be fine.


Sure, and China is going to allow that. Well, they might allow that if the USA agrees to retreat from the western pacific and Middle East / Africa. In which case, yes, past Peak America.
[size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size

OK John. Thank You for making a difference with your internet rant. If we all did that it would be a better place.

Trump is going to make America great again.

Trump is going to make America great again.

Good god.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good god.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, or Ben Carson is going to do it by banning abortion, making sure everyone has more guns and ensuring Muslims don't have the rights of other American citizens.

Just imagine the debates between Carson and Clinton :rotflmao:

Bernie...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just saw a clip on Trump on the stump pretty much insulting everyone. He looked desperate.

Just saw a clip on Trump on the stump pretty much insulting everyone. He looked desperate.

maybe he should just read from a teleprompter...I remember Obama insulting a lot of people on the stump

Well, or Ben Carson is going to do it by banning abortion, making sure everyone has more guns and ensuring Muslims don't have the rights of other American citizens.

Just imagine the debates between Carson and Clinton :rotflmao:

Carson said he would love it if Roe v Wade were overturned. Didn't hear that he would make sure everyone has more guns. He is in favor of the second amendment.

I don't recall him say that, as President, he would ban abortion or provide everyone with guns or more guns. I have heard him speak of adhering to the Constitution. So, I would assume he knows, as President, he would not have the power to do such things. On the other hand, Hillary has promised, as President, to do things which would not be in her Constitutionally appointed power to do. Most likely that Progressive idea of the Imperial Presidency.

When did Carson say that Muslims shouldn't have the same rights as other American citizens? He has pointed out that Islamic law is not compatible to our Constitutional law. And that a faithful Muslim could not truthfully protect and defend the Constitution as the oath of office would demand. But would have to as a matter of faith subvert the Constitution when it conflicted with Islamic law. Islam is a governmental system as well as a religion.

Do "other American citizens" have the right to subvert the Constitution when it conflicts with their faith or preferred system of government?

On the other hand, again, Progressives and Socialists do believe their preferred system of government does trump the Constitution. So they might find it strange that a Presidential candidate would not want someone who would impose their religion or preferred system of government when it conflicted with the Constitution. The Progressives and Socialists do so on a regular basis.

Spence and his fellow travelers have supported all sorts of misbehavior and slimy tactics for the last 8 years under Obama, Pelosi and Reed......he has absolutely no business questioning future nefarious congressional actions, dubious executive orders and other usurpation of limits...they've set the bar very low for competence and character and very high for incompetence and deceit

Quick coffee, session, quick.

Besides, I am beginning to think all of that debt is just a lever to get rid of currency in general. Other than pure incompetence, I can see no other endpoint than the elimination of currency, and thus capitalism, to replace with Socialism/Communism, repeat circle back to Civil War.

John, sometimes I see the actins of guys like you and TDF (fair minded, hard working, common sense, surround your kids with healthy activities), and I think maybe we avoid the abyss. I hoe there are enough people with brains and common sense. I think that's what it comes down to There may be too many brain dead liberals who want freebies more than they want anything.

Besides, I am beginning to think all of that debt is just a lever to get rid of currency in general. Other than pure incompetence, I can see no other endpoint than the elimination of currency, and thus capitalism, to replace with Socialism/Communism, repeat circle back to Civil War.

I've thought along the same lines. For some, maybe most politicians, it may not be an intentional endpoint, but, rather, simply pure incompetence and stupidity (Donald Trump may be right about that). But for some of the reputedly "smarter" ones for whom the end of capitalism is the goal, the elimination of currency, necessitated by massively inflated and unpayable debt, could possibly be a way to bloodlessly (or "reasonably" so) impose a socialist type of world government. In the complex and highly populated market of today in which barter is not feasible, the elimination of personally accumulated currency as both a medium of exchange and as well the means of building wealth in order to acquire more wealth, would only leave some government invented and controlled medium as the way to exchange labor, or even existence, for goods and necessities.

I sarcastically proposed such a system in a previous thread in which a government issued "insurance" card could be used to "buy" anything the market offered. The government would set the requirements needed to get the card. In such a way the entire market would be government controlled, and everybody would have the equal economic outcome that Socialists want.

why is Trump such a horrible choice? You make him sound like a Kardashian, when he's really an incredibly successful businessman, that's what made him famous first, the reality show just enhanced that (again, good business).

He's going to quickly realize his extremism isn't going to work, but that doesn't mean his ideas are useless. Why is securing our borders and negotiating good trade deals a terrible thing?

Well, or Ben Carson is going to do it by banning abortion, making sure everyone has more guns and ensuring Muslims don't have the rights of other American citizens.

Just imagine the debates between Carson and Clinton :rotflmao:

I like Ben's ideas. All of them.

[size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size

OK John. Thank You for making a difference with your internet rant. If we all did that it would be a better place.

No prob Chris, glad to help and continue to beat the drum on one of the biggest things that affect my kid and your kids that most politicians of both stripes quickly change the subject or ignore hoping all will go away.

I've thought along the same lines. For some, maybe most politicians, it may not be an intentional endpoint, but, rather, simply pure incompetence and stupidity (Donald Trump may be right about that). But for some of the reputedly "smarter" ones for whom the end of capitalism is the goal, the elimination of currency, necessitated by massively inflated and unpayable debt, could possibly be a way to bloodlessly (or "reasonably" so) impose a socialist type of world government. In the complex and highly populated market of today in which barter is not feasible, the elimination of personally accumulated currency as both a medium of exchange and as well the means of building wealth in order to acquire more wealth, would only leave some government invented and controlled medium as the way to exchange labor, or even existence, for goods and necessities.

I sarcastically proposed such a system in a previous thread in which a government issued "insurance" card could be used to "buy" anything the market offered. The government would set the requirements needed to get the card. In such a way the entire market would be government controlled, and everybody would have the equal economic outcome that Socialists want.

When you look out a few orders of affect, what else can it be? And by accident or by design?

I saw something interesting lately and had to chuckle, how many more Democrats choose government as the career path.

why is Trump such a horrible choice? You make him sound like a Kardashian, when he's really an incredibly successful businessman, that's what made him famous first, the reality show just enhanced that (again, good business).

He's going to quickly realize his extremism isn't going to work, but that doesn't mean his ideas are useless. Why is securing our borders and negotiating good trade deals a terrible thing?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/24/00/2a/24002aae977f78561f9b4ceb77fb16bd.jpg

I like Ben's ideas. All of them.

I did too, until he said that he would not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq if fair territrory to debate, I can't believe any sane person would object to our invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. I was very saddened by his statement there. Other than that,. I think he's fantastic.

I did too, until he said that he would not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq if fair territrory to debate, I can't believe any sane person would object to our invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. I was very saddened by his statement there.

Even I agree with the invasion; not with the 10 year drag out... but the initial move, and original mission 100%...

Other than that,. I think he's fantastic.

Other than that, we don't agree on that statement! :fishslap:

He's going to quickly realize his extremism isn't going to work, but that doesn't mean his ideas are useless. Why is securing our borders and negotiating good trade deals a terrible thing?
I've yet to hear any serious ideas. Really all I've seen from Trump are negative, demeaning, insulting and childish attacks. You don't turn that off, it comes so naturally to Trump because that's who he really is...

I've yet to hear any serious ideas. Really all I've seen from Trump are negative, demeaning, insulting and childish attacks. You don't turn that off, it comes so naturally to Trump because that's who he really is...

Sounds a lot like running on Hope and Change.

Sounds a lot like running on Hope and Change.
No, not at all.

Look at Puerto Rico right now. They are about to go under and are screaming at congress to allow them to fall under the same municipal bankruptcy protection that US states have.
So, while we might be up chit creek with a turd for a paddle, remember that the creek is only a foot or so deep. We can just default on everything, claim bankruptcy and start over. Just fire up the printing presses !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Default on everybody? How about the senior citizens who rely on social security checks?

In the end, we will realize that not only do compassionate conservatives like Paul Ryan, NOT want to destroy Social Security,m but that there were in fact, trying to save it. Others, mostly liberals are willing to let it go under, so that they can buy votes today.

"Just fire up the printing presses "

Because that has no downside...

No, not at all.

Actually, he's right. Obama had no specific ideas, he just promised this vague notion of "change".

we voted for change, and we got it, boy.

I saw a news report the other day. After getting elected, Obama asked to borrow a specific Norman Rockwell painting, to hang just outside the Oval Office. Everyone who walks into that office, has to walk right past it.

Know what it is?

A little black girl walking down the street, past a wall, on which is spray-painted in grafiti, the word "N*GGER".

Who the hell would want to walk past that every day, on the way into their office? A race-obsessed fanatic, who wants a constant reminder of who his enemies are. This, from the man who said he would unite us, and be a post-racial president.

Right.

God the hate runs deep with you...

I've yet to hear any serious ideas. Really all I've seen from Trump are negative, demeaning, insulting and childish attacks. You don't turn that off, it comes so naturally to Trump because that's who he really is...

Well honestly, maybe some of that bluntness will help our foreign policy, because this method of gentle diplomacy doesn't seem to be working so well with Syria or ISIS! If Regan acted like this, god knows where we would be with communism!

God the hate runs deep with you...

Right, right. I point out that our president specifically asked for a painting that makes whites out to be the worst kind of loathsome racists, and I am the hateful one.

You sit in Rev Wright's church for decades, who would expect anything different?

Well honestly, maybe some of that bluntness will help our foreign policy, because this method of gentle diplomacy doesn't seem to be working so well with Syria or ISIS! If Regan acted like this, god knows where we would be with communism!

Correct. When Carter was elected, the liberals said that his appeasement strategy would lead to peace. They were wrong. And as always, failed to learn from that empirical evidence.

Right, right. I point out that our president specifically asked for a painting that makes whites out to be the worst kind of loathsome racists, and I am the hateful one.

You sit in Rev Wright's church for decades, who would expect anything different?
Actually, the woman who posed as a girl for the painting made the request. It was up for 4 months. It's one of the most iconic political paintings of all time by one of America's greatest painters.

The hate is consuming you.

Actually, the woman who posed as a girl for the painting made the request. It was up for 4 months. It's one of the most iconic political paintings of all time by one of America's greatest painters.

The hate is consuming you.

It's divisive.

Look, it's an important part of our history, and if you're going to put up an entire museum, or when you teach history, it's an important subject to touch upon. I'm not saying we pretend it didn't happen.

But if I'm picking one painting to hang outside the Oval Office, I don't pick something whose only message is that whites, at one time, were institutionally racist to blacks. I'd pick something that unites all of us. And if a white President had a painting of Willie Horton raping a white woman, or abu Mumia Jamal murdering a white police officer, which are also factually correct, I don't think you'd be on board with it.

The great uniter!

But if I'm picking one painting to hang outside the Oval Office, I don't pick something whose only message is that some whites, plus the Europeans, and the Arabs, and stronger African tribes that profited from the slave trade, at one time, were institutionally racist to blacks. I'd pick something that unites all of us.

The great uniter!

There, fixed it for you, history, unlike skin color, IS more than skin deep.

YUP....


"In the new West, freedom is inequality, liberty selfishness, and tribalism unity. That is all ye need to know."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/426080/print

.... I hope there are enough people with brains and common sense. I think that's what it comes down to There may be too many brain dead liberals who want freebies more than they want anything.

Is there an APP for that?

That may be the only way to find any common sense among the general populace.

I love it, now Norman Rockwell is offensive and Donald Trump is admired for his personality.

Your world is upside down.

The clown car will be on the track tonight!!! Stay tuned for the brain trust's ideas on how to
A- drag us into another war
B- continue to enrich the 1% while stagnating wage growth for the middle and lower classes.
C-try to turn over social security to Wall Street and defund at the same time
D- using religion as a tool to gain votes to support their corporate based agenda !!!!

MURIKA!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, now Norman Rockwell is offensive and Donald Trump is admired for his personality.

Your world is upside down.

It's not offensive. But it's divisive.

Look, if next to that painting, he had another painting of white Americans marching alongside Dr King, that would be different.

But he doesn't. And the fact that he only has that one painting, even though segregation ended 50 years ago and he never once experienced it, says something about Obama. Nothing surprising, it just reinforces what non-brainwashed people already knew.

I don't admire Trump's personality, kindly refrain from those false claims.

The hate is consuming you.

I've told him that in the past.

I view the painting as giving a middle finger to all the racists out there who called him the N word, a ganster or the new one "You people".

Let's lie about his religion, his country, etc and then when we are upset say he is divisive.

If there's one trait I have witnessed amongst conservative republicans, it's bad taste in art :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look, if next to that painting, he had another painting of white Americans marching alongside Dr King, that would be different.

But he doesn't. And the fact that he only has that one painting, even though segregation ended 50 years ago and he never once experienced it, says something about Obama. Nothing surprising, it just reinforces what non-brainwashed people already knew.
Keep going, this is starting to get good.

Keep going, this is starting to get good.

:lurk:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've told him that in the past.

I view the painting as giving a middle finger to all the racists out there who called him the N word, a ganster or the new one "You people".

Let's lie about his religion, his country, etc and then when we are upset say he is divisive.

What was sitting in Rev Wright's church for decades? Just a way to give the finger to racists? Because his sermons seemed to cast the net pretty wide, in terms of defning the enemies of that congregation (which seem to include all honkeys, not just the bad ones). And that, seems very consistent, with the mindset of someone who would want that painting, of all the painitngs in the world, to hang outside the oval office.

All the tea leaves say the same thing. Remember the "bitter clingers" comment, when the Great Uniter thought the mike was off. He also claimed that all Republicans do, the only thing they do, is "hate all the time".

After all that, I'm supposed to believe he gives a fig about my aspirations? He has absolutely no idea what motivates huge numbers of Americans. So he assumes were are motivated by racism. It can't be that our ideas are better (after all, liberalism is working SO WELL in CT, RI, Mass, IL).

Easier to paint me as a hater, than to refute what I'm saying, given the empirical evidence available to us.

If there's one trait I have witnessed amongst conservative republicans, it's bad taste in art :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, to be fair to us slack-jawed hillbillies, we can't all be as cultured as Obama, with Jay Z on his ipod, and Beyonce on his speed dial.

It can't be that our ideas are better (after all, liberalism is working SO WELL in CT, RI, Mass, IL).

Funny,

The top 10 liberal states are primarily located in the outer longitudes of the U.S.: touching or close to the Atlantic Ocean (Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Maryland), and the Far West (Oregon, California, Washington and Hawaii)

America's top states to live in 2015 (CNBC)

Hawaii
Vermont
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Maine
Oregon
Washington
Massachusetts
Colorado
Iowa

Funny,



America's top states to live in 2015 (CNBC)

Hawaii
Vermont
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Maine
Oregon
Washington
Massachusetts
Colorado
Iowa

That's a riot, Spence. In those top states, what's the percentage of black and Mexican residents, compared to the rest of the country? Was that poll done by the Klan?

Liberalism might work fine in Greenwich CT, or on Nantucket. That doesn't mean it works in normal places.

I can see Jim's house on Sunday mornings

Jim's wife - Dear, we're going to be late for church.

Jim - Yes, don't forget I'm sch. to be an usher today.

Jim thinking to himself - I gotta hurry up and call the Pres. a POS and Hillary a FCOTUS.

I can see Jim's house on Sunday mornings

Jim's wife - Dear, we're going to be late for church.

Jim - Yes, don't forget I'm sch. to be an usher today.

Jim thinking to himself - I gotta hurry up and call the Pres. a POS and Hillary a FCOTUS.

Paul, let's get to the heart of this...

It's indisputable that Obama said that middle-Americans are bitter people who cling to religion/guns because they are racist.

It's also indisputable that he said that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time".

He's talking about me, and people like me.

How would you like me to describe him? How would you honestly describe someone who spoke about you that way? If I describe him in insulting terms (and of course I do), perhaps he has earned no better from me. Respect is to be earned, no?

Being Catholic, doesn't mean I'm supposed to let someone say hateful (and demonstrably false) things about me, and then thank him for the priviledge.

I hope you don't vote for trump then. 😝
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny,



America's top states to live in 2015 (CNBC)

Hawaii
Vermont
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Maine
Oregon
Washington
Massachusetts
Colorado
Iowa

Who cares about that poll. This is the only 1 that counts. You're from RI, right?

http://www.ctpost.com/living/article/Report-Connecticut-has-the-best-looking-women-6593163.php

I hope you don't vote for trump then. ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Me? I have zero respect for Trump, he's not close to worthy of POTUS. Fair enough?

That's a riot, Spence. In those top states, what's the percentage of black and Mexican residents, compared to the rest of the country? Was that poll done by the Klan?

Liberalism might work fine in Greenwich CT, or on Nantucket. That doesn't mean it works in normal places.


I looked it up. According to wikepedia, the US population, on average, is 12.6% black. Here are the %'s of blacks by state, for the states you and CNBC admire as the top states.

Hawaii - 3.1%
Vermont - 0.9%
Minnesota - 4.6%
New Hampshire - 1.2%
Maine - 1.0%
Oregon - 2.0
Washington - 3.7%
Massachusetts - 8.1%
Colorado - 4.3%
Iowa - 2.7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

Wow. Those 10 states from your poll, have a combined black population, that's about one-quarter of the national average. Maybe Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr conducted the poll for CNBC.

So should all the other states emulate those top states, and kick out 75% of their black residents? Is that what you and CNBC and the liberals, are suggesting?

You have to admit, you teed that one up nicely for me.

You were right, this is getting good.

Wow. Those 10 states from your poll, have a combined black population, that's about one-quarter of the national average. Maybe Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr conducted the poll for CNBC.
It's interesting (i.e. telling) that you jumped from liberal policy to black people.

What's on the brain Jim?

Me? I have zero respect for Trump, he's not close to worthy of POTUS. Fair enough?
Sounds like you're voting for Hillary then :faga:

It's interesting (i.e. telling) that you jumped from liberal policy to black people.

What's on the brain Jim?

Oh, I see! I pointed out that your poll equates "best" states with "overwhelmingly white" states, and that makes ME the racist. Because I pointed it out. That's what you're saying?

Here's what's on my brain - liberalism is catastrophic for black people. I can claim that with 100% confidence, because most urban areas have a large % of blacks, most have been under liberal Democratic rule for a generation, and most are far worse off than they were 50 years ago, before the Democratic party embraced whacko, San Fraancisco liberalism.

Your poll supports this claim, as with the exception of Mass, none of the states in your "top 10" have large urban areas.

Conclusion - it's easy to say liberalism isn't stupid, when you are examining a controlled population that is homogeneously white, and has no urban influence, and shares no open border with a place called "Mexico". That's why liberalism works in Norway (also because every Norwegian has an oil well in their backyard), and why it's asinine to suggest that if liberalism works in those places, it can work across the US as well. I happily concede that liberalism might work if we made th ewhole country look exactly like the 10 states you listed. But unless we can figure out a way to do that, most of the country is very different than those 10 states, and the differences are exactly what make liberalism a horrible idea.

Sounds like you're voting for Hillary then :faga:

Not in a million years. She has all the hate-filled, character issues Trump has. The difference is that in addition to being a jerk, Hilary has a proven track record of gross incompetence in high-level federal jobs (Secstate). Trump doesn't. So if the choice is between 2 a-holes, and the difference is that one hasn't shown that he'd be a flop in a senior government role, and the one who is a flop also has never met an abortion that she didn't like, then I can plug my nose and vote for Donald.

Moot point, he's about to drop like a brick and go away. Too late, but he's hopefully on his way out.

Spence, based on the racist poll you posted of the bst states to live in, who are you voting for? Margaret Sanger? I guess Hilary is the next best thing, right? After all, she has said she admires Sanger. Two peas in a pod.

Oh, I see! I pointed out that your poll equates "best" states with "overwhelmingly white" states, and that makes ME the racist. Because I pointed it out. That's what you're saying, and it's pathetic.
Why did you post that then? I thought the remark was about liberal policy. You don't have to go blaming the blacks and mexicans.

Here's what's on my brain - liberalism is catastrophic for black people. I can claim that with 100% confidence, because most urban areas have a large % of blacks, most have been under liberal Democratic rule for a generation, and most are far worse off than they were 50 years ago, before the Democratic party embraced whacko, San Fraancisco liberalism.
Is that because of liberal policy or urban demographics.

I'd note that rural poverty among children is much worse among whites, and that's focused in southern states that are largely more conservative.

Conclusion = You're just making things up.

Conclusion - it's easy to say liberalism isn't stupid, when you are examining a controlled population that is homogeneously white, and has no urban influence, and shares no open border with a place called "Mexico". That's why liberalism works in Norway (also because every Norwegian has an oil well in their backyard), and why it's asinine to suggest that if liberalism works in those places, it can work across the US as well.
So you're saying that it's the absence of minorities that makes liberalism work? First, I'm surprised you're admitting liberalism works anywhere, but then bringing it back to race again.

It's like I'm talking to Donald Trump.

You got eviscerated here.

Isn't that like calling yourself cool? :scratch:

Why did you post that then? I thought the remark was about liberal policy. You don't have to go blaming the blacks and mexicans.


Is that because of liberal policy or urban demographics.

I'd note that rural poverty among children is much worse among whites, and that's focused in southern states that are largely more conservative.

Conclusion = You're just making things up.


So you're saying that it's the absence of minorities that makes liberalism work? First, I'm surprised you're admitting liberalism works anywhere, but then bringing it back to race again.

It's like I'm talking to Donald Trump.



Isn't that like calling yourself cool? :scratch:

"Why did you post that then?"

Because it's funny that you ( a liberal) posted a study by CNBC (liberals) saying that the best "liberal" states, are the most white states. You got awfully defensive when I said that, and I haven't heard you offer an explanation as to why that is.

"You don't have to go blaming the blacks and mexicans.

Again, you post a poll saying white=good, and I'm the one blaming them. All I did, was point out that your favorite states, sure don't have a lot of blacks and Mexicans. Am I wrong there? Please explain. I did post my supporting facts (unlike you).

"liberal policy or urban demographics"

Both. The more urban the area, the worse a place it is for liberal policy. Which do you think it is, and why?

"I'd note that rural poverty among children is much worse among whites". Hmm, that's a head scratcher. Maybe because rural areas are predominantly white?

"So you're saying that it's the absence of minorities that makes liberalism work?"

Are you feeling OK? You said that, when you listed the best liberal states.

"I'm surprised you're admitting liberalism works anywhere"

Why are you surprised? I am honest. Liberal economics works where there is almost unlimited money, and very few low-income people who need to take more than they contribute. Common sense suggests liberalism works there. I admit that. Common sense also suggests liberalism can't work when the ratio of takers and taxpayers reaches an inflection point. I admit that, too. But you don't. I wonder why that is?

"It's like I'm talking to Donald Trump."

Except I live paycheck to paycheck, I am bald, I back up my opinions with irrefutable fact, and I am respectful until people give me a genuine reason not to be. Other than that, sure, why not.

Mont, ND, SD, Utah. All more white than some of those states listed.

Face it, you just have African American's on your mind.

Mont, ND, SD, Utah. All more white than some of those states listed.

Face it, you just have African American's on your mind.

Paul, the states he listed as the "best", have a combined black population that is one-quarter the national average. He was the one who claimed those were the best states. I pointed out, correctly, that his "best" states are overwhelmingly white.

If my pointing that out makes me the racist, I fail to see how.

I'd argue, quite convincingly, that the people who put that poll together, are the ones focused on blacks. Specifically, they are focused on not living anywhere near them.

One point to Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your cherry picking the states to fit your narrative. Many other states have higher % of whites but where not listed.

Your cherry picking the states to fit your narrative. Many other states have higher % of whites but where not listed.
Jim doesn't cherry pick, he just jams things together, pronounces an infallible conclusion and then declares victory.

It's like this.

Rhode Island consumes more donuts per capita than Ohio which has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So logically Rhode Islanders are too fat to dance and hate music. Try making that wrong.

2 points to Spence !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your cherry picking the states to fit your narrative. Many other states have higher % of whites but where not listed.

Do you know what "cherry-picking" is?

I looked at all 10 states in the poll that Spence posted. Together, combined (meaning, no cherry picking), they are overwhelmingly white.

I included all 10 that were in his poll, and made an observation about all 10 in aggregate. That necessarily means, I did not cherry pick.

Nice try.

"He can't be right! What can we accuse him of?!"

Jim doesn't cherry pick, he just jams things together, pronounces an infallible conclusion and then declares victory.

It's like this.

Rhode Island consumes more donuts per capita than Ohio which has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So logically Rhode Islanders are too fat to dance and hate music. Try making that wrong.

Spence, if I say that "your 10 best states are overwhelmingly white", please point out the fallacy. If you can't (and I provided the data, so you are free to fact check), then it was infallable.

Your analogy of donuts and dancing has no conceivable correlation. The fact that your best states happen to lilly-white, in my opinion, is correlated.

Just because 2 htings exist together, doesn't mean there is a correlation.

Every single one of yoru ten best states, had a far lower % of minorities than the national average. Since you declined to post the study, and we therefore have no idea what the criteris for "best" was, we are forced to speculate. But 10 for 10 is a pretty big coincidence.

And it makes sense that liberal supporters would predominantly live in places, where they aren't as effected by the disasterous impacts of their idiotic policies.

Like the liberal NY judge who freed a 3-time convicted drug dealer so that he could then murder a cop. The judges don't care, because where they live, drug dealers don't roam free.

Aren't all states overwhelmingly white?

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/

The healthiest states are mostly liberal.

Liberal states have higher taxes which they put into social services which makes poor people's lives better. Cons. states have lower taxes which is reflected in the poor having worse lives. Basically, the conserv. states have no compassion for anyone worse off then themselves bc they think the taxes are going to lazy Blacks who are just looking for handouts. This is why cons. want vouchers - they know the poor Blacks will never be able to afford a private school anyways, so they might as well take $ from the public schools and give it to themselves so they can go a private school.:)

I like Ben's ideas. All of them.
Like how prisons turn people gay?

Aren't all states overwhelmingly white?

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/

The healthiest states are mostly liberal.

Liberal states have higher taxes which they put into social services which makes poor people's lives better. Cons. states have lower taxes which is reflected in the poor having worse lives. Basically, the conserv. states have no compassion for anyone worse off then themselves bc they think the taxes are going to lazy Blacks who are just looking for handouts. This is why cons. want vouchers - they know the poor Blacks will never be able to afford a private school anyways, so they might as well take $ from the public schools and give it to themselves so they can go a private school.:)

"Aren't all states overwhelmingly white?"

Getting desperate. Yes, all states are majority white. Some states are more white than others. Still with me? His list of the best states, are 75% less black, than the national average. That's not a trivial difference. Perhaps you might benefit from taking a math class.

"{Liberal states have higher taxes which they put into social services which makes poor people's lives better."

Says who? I reject that it makes their lives "better" (or I would be liberal). Take a stroll through the biggest cities in CT (Hartford, Bridgeport). These cities have been under liberal control for 50 years, no one would say the quality of life is better than it was when I was a kid. The empirical evidence absolutely rejects your conclusion that liberal welfare helps these people in total. It helps some, of course.

"Cons. states have lower taxes which is reflected in the poor having worse lives"

Wild assumption on your part. Why do poor people stay in those states?

"the conserv. states have no compassion for anyone worse off then themselves"

Ah, the pathetic, and demonstrably false statement, that liberals have a monopoly on compassion.

Try reading this study on this issue...shows that conservatives actually are slightly more generous, than liberals. This from the New York Times, worth noting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

All you have are baseless, ridiculous insults.

Haven't we discussed the fact that much of that $ is going to churches - which is self serving. I've admitted that myself. My church has a nice hall and is building a gym which you won't be able to use unless you join my church.

Pulling that out shows how desperate you are.

You demonstrate your compassion here every day :)

Tell us again what you think of Hillary - FCOTUS - nice and classy.

Haven't we discussed the fact that much of that $ is going to churches - which is self serving. I've admitted that myself. My church has a nice hall and is building a gym which you won't be able to use unless you join my church.

Pulling that out shows how desperate you are.

You demonstrate your compassion here every day :)

Tell us again what you think of Hillary - FCOTUS - nice and classy.

What you rchurch does with its donations, doesn't say anything about what other churches do. Many churches give huge %'s of donations to services for the poor. Ever heard of Catholic soup kitchens or homeless shelters or hospitals or adoption services?

"You demonstrate your compassion here every day "

Like respect, that has to be earned. You say that I'm racist for pointing out facts, you say that conservatives aren't compassionate when it's demonstrably false, then don't expect much grace from me in response. Just facts, with some spiking of the football. I never claimed I was above that.

I can support most of what I say with facts, empirical evidence, and comon sense. All you can counter with, are claims of racism and lack of empathy. One only doe sthat, when one knows they have no other cards to play, because they have been clobbered.

Yes, I've heard of those charities - but they are a small part of the overall donations/deductions. Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different.

The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them. Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response.

Look at the link to the Kaiser family foundation and you'll see states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes.

correlation does not necessarily imply causation

The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them. Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response.
It's not that the analysis is wrong, it's that there really isn't any analysis.

Yes, I've heard of those charities - but they are a small part of the overall donations/deductions. Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different.

The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them. Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response.

Look at the link to the Kaiser family foundation and you'll see states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes.

correlation does not necessarily imply causation

"Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different. "

Here is what the New York Time shad to say...

"if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

So according to the NYT, removing donations to churchjes (even if that's appropriate, which I would say it's not), that doesn't make conservatives out to be the heartless penny pinchers you wish they were. Ignoring donations to churches, if you look at donations relative to income, conservatives are still more generous. Look, I'm not saying that all conservatives are generous, many are not. Nor am I saying that liberals are all stingy, many are quite generous. What I am saying, is that's it's insane for liberals to claim they have a monopoly on charity and generosity. There is zero data to support that statement, all the data rejects that statement. And you made that statement in your last post.

Not all church donations go to build lavish facilities for the church members.

"The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them"

No, it would not be the same. Because the fact is, those states have far fewer blacks than the national average. Yet CNBC, and Spence, consider them to be the "best" states to live in. I find that interesting, considering that in additoin to claiming that they have a monopoly on charity, liberals also like to claim that they have a monopoly on caring about blacks. As long as it's from far away, I guess.

"Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response. "

I speculated, to be sure. I specifically said that. But the fact is, all 10 of those states are far more white than the national average. As someone who studies statistical correlations for a living, I can say there's agreat chance that the whiteness of those states is somewhat related to the qualities that make liberals claim they are the "best" states. If not, that would be one hell of a coincidence. Possible, though. I am speculating. But it's a good bet. Just because it doesn't support your agenda, doesn't make my guess less valid.

"states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes"

That may be true, I wouldn't doubt that. But I don't think life expectancy of one's neighbors is the only thing that goes into determining quality of life.

Funny, you criticize me for speculating about the criteria that went into the poll of best states. Yet you are more than comfortable speculating that "health" was all that matters.

How come you can specuate, but I can't? Sorry, what's good for the goose...

"Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different. "

Here is what the New York Time shad to say...

"if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

So according to the NYT, removing donations to churchjes (even if that's appropriate, which I would say it's not), that doesn't make conservatives out to be the heartless penny pinchers you wish they were. Ignoring donations to churches, if you look at donations relative to income, conservatives are still more generous. So as a % of income conserv. are more generous. 2 things 1) that would imply cons. make less $. That has been stated here frequently but I could never varify that. 2) When someone here points out that the US is not the most generous nations to various charities, people alwasy say it isn't the % of GDP or some other measure that matters but total $s. "Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response. "

Funny, you criticize me for speculating about the criteria that went into the poll of best states. Yet you are more than comfortable speculating that "health" was all that matters.

How come you can specuate, but I can't? Sorry, what's good for the goose...

I never said that health is all that matters but many polls view liberal states are better bc of health. If someone conducts a survey using lower tax rates as a criteria, then I'm sure cons. states would come out on top.
You where the one who initiaially responded to Spence's post with the idea (speculated?) that those states had more whites, not me. You even said something about correlation when infact as I said, correlation not does imply causation.

Here is a poll that says liberal Conn. is the best state.

Connecticut Is The Best State
http://touch.courant.com/#section/2225/article/p2p-83419548/
Connecticut is the best state.
That's the conclusion of a report from Measure of America, which took into account a wide range of factors including income, education, health, economic and crime indicators.
Massachusetts was a close second, followed by New Jersey. Mississippi and Arkansas had the lowest scores.

The key measure is described as the "Human Development Index," which itself is the average of three other indexes: Health (based on life expectancy), education (based on what percentage of the population is in school and the educational attainment of the 25-and-older population), and income (based on median personal earnings).
"Human development is defined as the process of enlarging people’s freedoms and opportunities and improving their well-being," the report states. "Human development is about the real freedom ordinary people have to decide who to be, what to do, and how to live."
Connecticut ranked No. 1 in 2010, 2008, 2005 and 2000, according to the data.
The report also explores other factors, including immunization and diabetes rates, crime rates, voter participation, race, poverty rate and food stamp use, environmental health, housing rates and costs, and youth health scores.
Despite its rigor, the analysis does not take into account many other factors that might come to mind when evaluating a state, including tax rates, how wealth is distributed, children’s test scores and more.
Last week, Measure of America released a similar report that ranked U.S. Congressional Districts. Fairfield County ranked No. 20 of 436 in the country, the highest ranking in the state.
The data in the report come from government sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI, the report states.
"Measure of America" is a project of the national Social Science Resource Council, which itself is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the United Nations, as well as some foreign governments, according to the SSRC's website. U.S. government agencies also provide support, especially the Department of State and the National Science Foundation, the website states.

And an article on those lazy welfare recieving liberals.

The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor
OCT. 20, 2015
Eduardo Porter
ECONOMIC SCENE
Does welfare corrupt the poor?
Few ideas are so deeply ingrained in the American popular imagination as the belief that government aid for poor people will just encourage bad behavior.
The proposition is particularly cherished on the conservative end of the spectrum, articulated with verve by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, who blamed welfare for everything from higher youth unemployment to increases in “illegitimacy.” His views are shared, to a greater or lesser degree, by Republican politicians like the unsuccessful presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
But even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the father of the New Deal, called welfare “a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” And it was President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who put an end to “welfare as we know it.”
Today, almost 20 years after Mr. Clinton signed a law that stopped the federal entitlement to cash assistance for low-income families with children, the argument has solidified into a core tenet influencing social policy not only in the United States but also around the world.
And yet, to a significant degree, it is wrong. Actual experience, from the richest country in the world to some of the poorest places on the planet, suggests that cash assistance can be of enormous help for the poor. And freeing them from what President Ronald Reagan memorably termed the “spider’s web of dependency” — also known as forcing the poor to swim or sink — is not the cure-all for social ills its supporters claim.
One billion people in developing countries participate in a social safety net. At least one type of unconditional cash assistance is used in 119 countries. In 52 other countries, cash transfers are conditioned on relatively benign requirements like parents’ enrolling their children in school.
Abhijit Banerjee, a director of the Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, released a paper with three colleagues last week that carefully assessed the effects of seven cash-transfer programs in Mexico, Morocco, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Indonesia. It found “no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work.”
A World Bank report from 2014 examined cash assistance programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America and found, contrary to popular stereotype, the money was not typically squandered on things like alcohol and tobacco.
Still, Professor Banerjee observed, in many countries, “we encounter the idea that handouts will make people lazy.”
Professor Banerjee suggests the spread of welfare aversion around the world might be an American confection. “Many governments have economic advisers with degrees from the United States who share the same ideology,” he said. “Ideology is much more pervasive than the facts.”
What is most perplexing is that the United States’ own experience with both welfare and its “reform” does not really support the charges.
Take births to single mothers. Already in 1995, an analysis of rates of birth to unwed mothers by Hilary Hoynes of the University of California, Berkeley, found that welfare payments did not increase single motherhood. And the experience over the next 20 years suggested that ending welfare did not reduce it.
The charge that welfare will become a way of life reproducing itself down the generations is also dubious. Before welfare reform in 1996, some four in 10 Americans on welfare were on it for only one or two years. Only about a third were on it for five years or more.
And what about jobs? There is little doubt that welfare can discourage employment, particularly when recipients lose benefits quickly as their earnings from work rise.
Still, the effects are muted. For instance, in 1983 Robert Moffitt, then at Rutgers University, estimated that welfare reduced work by some four hours a week out of a total of 25.
“There is some disincentive effect consistent with theory, but the economic magnitude is not large,” said James P. Ziliak, head of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky. “Oftentimes these disincentive effects are overstated in the policy discourse.”
On the other hand, welfare provides very tangible benefits. New research shows that more cash welfare early in a child’s life improves the child’s longevity, educational attainment and nutritional status, and income in adulthood.
What did the United States achieve with welfare reform?
Its core objective — getting the poor into jobs — was laudable. In the early years, the effects seemed almost too good to believe. The number of families on welfare plummeted. The labor supply of single mothers soared. Child poverty declined sharply.
But the cheering faded. Over time the labor supply of less-educated single mothers, those with at most a high school education, returned to its earlier level. Poverty rebounded, as did births outside marriage.
After the fact, many independent researchers concluded that the strong economy of the late 1990s, combined with bigger wage subsidies through an expanded earned-income tax credit, deserved most of the credit for the improvement. Meanwhile, pushing the poor off welfare — replacing the entitlement to cash assistance with limited state-run programs that sharply curtailed access to aid for all sorts of reasons — had definite costs, borne by the poorest of the poor.
“What we lost is a commitment to the poor who face significant barriers to work, whether because of child care or physical or mental disabilities,” Mr. Ziliak said. “We have walked away from cash for that group and that group has suffered considerably.”
When the Great Recession struck, many of the poorest Americans found there was no safety net for them. “Extreme poverty was more affected by the shock to the labor market than in prior experience,” said Professor Hoynes at Berkeley.
Why is this debate still relevant today? The evidence has not caught up with the popular belief that welfare reform was a huge success.
The old welfare strategy Mr. Murray blamed for so many social ills died long ago. Its replacement is tiny by comparison, providing cash to only about a quarter of poor families and typically only enough to take them a quarter of the way out of poverty.
Still, it remains under siege. And the arguments against it are pretty much the same that President Reagan made 30 years ago.
Representative Ryan has been promoting a plan he drafted last year that would substitute most remaining federal assistance programs with block grants to states and impose tough work requirements on beneficiaries.
“Rather than just treating the symptoms of poverty,” he said last month, “our goal must be to help people move from welfare into work and self-sufficiency.”
Before the United States goes down that road again, however, it might make sense to reassess the strength of the underlying argument: that poor people will never act responsibly, get a job and stay in a family unless they are thrown into the swimming pool and left to struggle with little support from the rest of us.

Here is a poll that says liberal Conn. is the best state.

.

And that poll is laughable. It's based on wealth, health (tied to wealth), and education (tied to wealth). We are a wealthy state, thanks to the zillionaires in Fairfield County.

Any poll that ranks "best states" without regard to taxes or cost of living, is a liberal poll pre-determined to prove that liberalism works. Here's all you need to know about CT...it is one of the few states in the nation losing population, and in a poll of residents, 50% said they'd like to leave. How's that consistent with the "best state"?

I never said that health is all that matters but many polls view liberal states are better bc of health. If someone conducts a survey using lower tax rates as a criteria, then I'm sure cons. states would come out on top.
You where the one who initiaially responded to Spence's post with the idea (speculated?) that those states had more whites, not me. You even said something about correlation when infact as I said, correlation not does imply causation.

"that would imply cons. make less $. That has been stated here frequently but I could never varify that"

Then you didn't read the study I posted, which suggests that conservatives, on average, have lower incomes. Think of the deep south, heavily conservative. Liberal strongholds tend to be Manhattan, Hollywood, San Fransisco, etc). I can see that conservatives would have lower average incomes. Either way, the reason I posted that loink, was to reject your notion that conservatives have no compassion. Even if liberals are a bit more generous (which this study refutes), that doesn't mean conservatives aren't generous as well. Right? Both sides can be generous, it's not one or the other.

"You where the one who initiaially responded to Spence's post with the idea (speculated?) that those states had more whites"

Are you feeling OK? The notion that they are very white states is NOT speculation. I posted census data to prove my point. If a conservative says that 2+2=4, do you assume that's speculation?

Paul, if welfare was such a help (instead of a crippling influence) why hasn't the poverty rate moved much, despite the trillions we spend on welfare? Why is almost every urban city worse off now than it was 50 years ago? Does your article address that?

I have no problem helping those in need. But for those who can be taught be lift themselves up, that's better than getting a handout. Liberals deny that, because if all those pepole became self-sufficient, they wouldn't all vote for Democrats.

Welfare is great at keeping poeple alive, and that's important. It's horrible at incentivizing people to become self sufficient, and that's also important to acknowledge.

Conservatives want as many as possible., to be self suffficient as possible. Democrats don't want that, because it would mean a smaller voting base. The Dems want to keep these people alive but unable to take care of themselves, thus be addicted to welfare, thus likeley to vote for Democrats.

Jim, I assumed you knew what "correlation does not mean causation" means being an actuary but now I'm really starting to wonder.

Jim, I assumed you knew what "correlation does not mean causation" means being an actuary but now I'm really starting to wonder.

I know all about it. When not speaking to other actuaries, I use them interchangeably, as most people don't know the difference. And in the world of statistics, there are widely varying opinions on the difference between causation and correlation.

In Spence's poll, I'm not sure it matters. What matters is that the best states are very white. You said that is "speculation", and it is not - it is irrefutable fact.

If liberals care as much about diversity as they claim to, I find it interesting that their 10 best states are so overwhelmingly white, compared to the nation as a whole. I would think that the lack of diversity in those states, would make them un-appealing to true liberals. Unless they are full of crap, of course.

You do know that Corperate welfare is many times higher than personal welfare, right??? Guess who's fighting real hard for that !!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do know that Corperate welfare is many times higher than personal welfare, right??? Guess who's fighting real hard for that !!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who Eben? please finish the thought...I'm pretty confident that if you look at the distribution of what you term "corporate welfare" it's doled out pretty evenly from by both sides of the aisle...I just read an article from May ranking the top recipients and NIKE, INTEL, GM and FIAT were right up there in the top 8...Boeing is ranked #1 and received it's largest ever subsidy in WASHINGTON where dems have the house , senate and governorship I believe......please tell me how electing someone who promises to greatly expand the role of government and vastly increase amount of money funneled through Washington will reduce the amount of "corporate welfare" that these folks are ever anxious to hand out...

Berkshire Hathaway...#15 BTW

And an article on those lazy welfare recieving liberals.

The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor
OCT. 20, 2015
Eduardo Porter
ECONOMIC SCENE




Still, Professor Banerjee observed, in many countries, “we encounter the idea that handouts will make people lazy.”


YUP :kewl:

You do know that Corperate welfare is many times higher than personal welfare, right??? Guess who's fighting real hard for that !!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I don't know that at all. Can you post a study that shows that corporations receive more freebies from the government, than individuals do? I'm curious. And what do the feds get back, in terms of federal income tax, from the employees of the corporations?

Bill Clinton, still a hero to blacks, instituted welfare reform, he kicked a LOT of poor people off welfare. Did they all starve to death? No, they went to work. That's what he intended, and it worked beautifully. And he is a hero to the left.

Today, if someone proposed that, they would be crucified by the left.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics



Here you go Jim.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics



Here you go Jim.

thinkbynumbers? Now that sounds like a site an actuary would love :smokin:

You know. Logic ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i can see him now frantically googling this to prove that is is really wrong and blacks, Latinos and the poor are to blame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i can see him now frantically googling this to prove that is is really wrong and blacks, Latinos and the poor are to blame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You forgot the abortionists.

thinkbynumbers? Now that sounds like a site an actuary would love :smokin:

I didn't say he was wrong, I asked for the numbers and he provided them.

Now, what are your thoughts about the fact that the 10 best liberal states, are about as racially diverse as a Bing Crosby concert? I keep asking, you keep dodging. That doesn't stop you from logging on, hurling a baseless insult, and scurrying off.

i can see him now frantically googling this to prove that is is really wrong and blacks, Latinos and the poor are to blame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I also asked how much of that corporate welfare we get back, in the form of tax revenue from the employees that have jobs thanks to the welfare.

Is corporate welfare spent so that CEOs can make 25M a year instead of 15M a year? Or is it used so that the company can increase the number of employees it has?

I have no problem whatsoever with ending corporate welfare that isn't used to help large numbers of working people.

I also have no issue with social welfare, which genuinely helps those who have no other recourse.

We need to tighten controls for both corporate welfare and social welfare, so that money isn't wasted, and so that we aren't incentivizing bad behavior.

I worked at a supermarket when I was a kid. Every single month, when food stamps came out, the same exact people would argue with me, trying to use their food stamps to buy cigarettes, makeup, things like that. I don't want my money being used for that purpose.

If you think that means I hate pooor people, I would disagree.

i can see him now frantically googling this to prove that is is really wrong and blacks, Latinos and the poor are to blame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence posted a poll saying that the "best" states to live in, were states that had FAR fewer blacks than the national average. I pointed that out. How does that make me the racist, exactly?

I'm all ears...

Now, what are your thoughts about the fact that the 10 best liberal states, are about as racially diverse as a Bing Crosby concert? I keep asking, you keep dodging. That doesn't stop you from logging on, hurling a baseless insult, and scurrying off.
I think it has a lot more to do with the history of slavery, migration caused by Southern segregation, disenfranchisement and industrial growth than liberal policy.

I think it has a lot more to do with the history of slavery, migration caused by Southern segregation, disenfranchisement and industrial growth than liberal policy.

Huh??

I never said that liberalism was the reason why there are few blacks in those states. I said that it's interesting that every single state in the liberal top 10, according to you, is overwhelmingly white. I would think that to a staunch liberal, such white purity would be unattractive.

I suspect that if they moved the city of Chicago, or the Mexican border, to any of those states, they would immediately drop out of the liberal top 10. That is pure speculation on my part. But it's a safe bet.

Jim is a big believer in that correlation means causation theory.

Jim is a big believer in that correlation means causation theory.

Again, putting words in my mouth. You really take liberties there.

I am a big believer that when there is credible data, correlation usually, not always, implies some causation.

For someone who still claims that I am "speculating" that those 10 states are awfully white, despite the evidence, all of a sudden you are a stats expert?

Look at the 10 states that liberals identify as the top 10. Is there anytihng else that connects them so consistently, as their whiteness? i don't know. But when all 10 have 75% fewer blacks than the nationwoide average, anyone who took stats 101 would say that sure sticks out. You could also say that most are in the north. Those frigid winters tend to keep out the riff-raff.

Sorry that doesn't serve your agenda. Math doesn't care about such things.

I am a big believer that when there is credible data, correlation usually, not always, implies some causation.
That depends on who's analyzing the data.

Look at the 10 states that liberals identify as the top 10. Is there anytihng else that connects them so consistently, as their whiteness? i don't know. But when all 10 have 75% fewer blacks than the nationwoide average, anyone who took stats 101 would say that sure sticks out. You could also say that most are in the north. Those frigid winters tend to keep out the riff-raff.
I answered this question above yet you simply didn't understand it.

I liked your last sentence though. :heybaby:

That depends on who's analyzing the data.


I answered this question above yet you simply didn't understand it.

I liked your last sentence though. :heybaby:

Yuo did???

"history of slavery, migration caused by Southern segregation, disenfranchisement and industrial growth "

Please elaborate on why those things lead to extremely low black populations, in the states that liberals rank "best"? Even if those things explained low black population in those particular states (which they don't), it doesn't explain why all 10 of the liberal "top 10" happen to be so white? You didn't come close to explaining that.

"I liked your last sentence though"

Well, I presume there is a reason that the top 10 liberal states are not only very white, but also nowhere near the large border with Mexico. Why do you suppose that is? Here', I'll make it easy for you, I will make it fill in the blank.

I, Spence, think that the top 10 liberal states to live in, are almost all white, and not near the Mexican border, because _________.

Now, you go ahead and fill that in, please.

Face it, you just have African American's on your mind.

Call it what it is.....Jungle Fever :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, putting words in my mouth. You really take liberties there.

For someone who still claims that I am "speculating" that those 10 states are awfully white, despite the evidence, all of a sudden you are a stats expert?

But when all 10 have 75% fewer blacks than the nationwoide average, anyone who took stats 101 would say that sure sticks.
I'm not putting words in your mouth or taking liberties, that is exactly what your doing. You're speculating the poll was based on the % of whites. I don't believe you have ever asked for a link to see what went into the poll.

And any first year actuarial student would know correlation does not mean causation. Yet you continue to believe that while there is some correlation, there is causation w/o looking into it further. Would you do that at work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not putting words in your mouth or taking liberties, that is exactly what your doing. You're speculating the poll was based on the % of whites. I don't believe you have ever asked for a link to see what went into the poll.

And any first year actuarial student would know correlation does not mean causation. Yet you continue to believe that while there is some correlation, there is causation w/o looking into it further. Would you do that at work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You're speculating the poll was based on the % of whites."

I asked him what he thought about the fact the top 10 states were so white. I didn't say the states were picked for their whiteness, but they sure weren't picked for their ethnic diversity.

"And any first year actuarial student would know correlation does not mean causation"

Correlation implies a pretty darn good likelihood of causation, though not a certainty.

"you continue to believe that while there is some correlation, there is causation w/o looking into it further"

I asked him to explain the whiteness of those states, and he chose not to. I asked him to post the poll so that I could see the criteria, and he chose not to. Not sure what else I can do there.