This might be it, we are doomed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like you're voting for Hillary then

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

"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.

[PaulS]

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Nebe]

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

[PaulS]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

I like Ben's ideas. All of them.

Like how prisons turn people gay?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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/op...stof.html?_r=0

All you have are baseless, ridiculous insults.

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[PaulS]

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[Jim in CT]

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.

[PaulS]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Nebe]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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