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/22.../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.

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"?

"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.

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

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

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


YUP :kewl:

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...are-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

You forgot the abortionists.

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Call it what it is.....Jungle Fever :hee:
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.