Perchoutofwater Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Those flyover states aren't looking nearly as stupid as some would have you believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I simply do not understand the debt that Jersey is in. We've a higher population density than India and the second highest salary per capita. With salaries being what they are - I cannot see all that much going to the poor and such. hurts my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NastyAssMayonnaise Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 $2500 difference between living in Texas and New York? I'd pay more. Lots more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Nebraska $15. That's a total debt of $90 then, seeing how only 6 people live there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I simply do not understand the debt that Jersey is in. We've a higher population density than India and the second highest salary per capita. With salaries being what they are - I cannot see all that much going to the poor and such. hurts my head. Because New Jersey has the most ridiculous unsustainable pension fund by far in America. On a related note, it's the reason the Guidos have to pay more taxes for their spray-on tans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 You can almost see the line of secession. Adios suckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 I simply do not understand the debt that Jersey is in. We've a higher population density than India and the second highest salary per capita. With salaries being what they are - I cannot see all that much going to the poor and such. hurts my head. In almost all cases those in the worst financial shape are the more liberal states, and those int he best financial shape are conservative states. Liberal policies are almost always unsustainable. Like Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Those flyover states aren't looking nearly as stupid as some would have you believe. what an odd coincidence that it looks so similar to this map. or even more appropriately, line it up with the info in this table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Conservatives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Conservatives When most below the poverty level have a dishwasher, a microwave, a care, a cell phone, a TV etc... maybe we need to rethink what constitutes poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Conservatives which pertains to the issue of state debt per capita well....not at all. but...I'd be very interested to see (and I have no idea what the answer is, but it would be illuminating either way) what those same state-by-state numbers were, say, 40 or 50 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 When most below the poverty level have a dishwasher, a microwave, a care, a cell phone, a TV etc... maybe we need to rethink what constitutes poverty. Do you have pocs with poverty people in the cares? which pertains to the issue of state debt per capita well....not at all. Oops, thought it was the trickle down theory thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Nebraska $15. That's a total debt of $90 then, seeing how only 6 people live there. I think there are at least 3 of us here on the Huddle so 50% participation has to count for something. Anyway, I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are or how they were arrived at. Nebraska has a population of about 1.7 million and they say the share is $15 per person? So $15 x 1.7 mil equals about 25.5 mil shortage. Maybe this is a state budget only or something, because the city of Omaha has a budget gap of about 45 million alone. Is it possible that we are looking at part of the pie and coming to conclusions without including city problems as well? Personally, I don't really care if my state tax is facing a slight increase when my city tax is going through the roof. In the end, it still comes out of the same pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Conservatives Those conservative policies in South Carolina haven't worked too well either. If all you people see is the golf resorts on the beach, that's not what the majority of streets in South Carolina look like. Most of our cities are turning into a redneck version of Detroit and Oakland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I think there are at least 3 of us here on the Huddle so 50% participation has to count for something. Square, TitansFan, wcd480..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 In almost all cases those in the worst financial shape are the more liberal states, and those int he best financial shape are conservative states. Liberal policies are almost always unsustainable. Like Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." thanks for your cookie cutter insight that surprises nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Conservatives by the way, put a list of states ranked by percentage of racial minority population next to that list and it will line up almost exactly (well, except for west virginia ). percentage under poverty is measuring that reality far more than it is measuring any sort of state fiscal policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 by the way, put a list of states ranked by percentage of racial minority population next to that list and it will line up almost exactly (well, except for west virginia ). percentage under poverty is measuring that reality far more than it is measuring any sort of state fiscal policy. Ah yes slavery still making those states look bad even today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 thanks for your cookie cutter insight that surprises nobody. Your counter, on the other hand, was sheer brilliance. PS I hate to break it to you, but he's right. Research it yourself if you don't believe it. And have fun chalking it up to coincedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Your counter, on the other hand, was sheer brilliance. PS I hate to break it to you, but he's right. Research it yourself if you don't believe it. And have fun chalking it up to coincedence. I was specifically wondering about Jersey, because it does not seem like we'd have all that much money going to the poor (and it seems like we've got a lot of money). It also seems that with the population being as dense as it, that infrastructure would be cheaper. So with that said - I guess I was looking for something more factual than something broadly partisan that didn't explain very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Those flyover states aren't looking nearly as stupid as some would have you believe. Yes they are. and they all talk funny, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Yes they are. and they all talk funny, too. I speak perfect engrish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I've got a front row seat to see if/when CA figures out their liberal OPEX histoy has led them to ruin. I'm hopeful, but not holding my breath. It is interesting that as many "liberals" as there are in this state, not many of them subscribe to truly liberal tax and spend policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 It is interesting that as many "liberals" as there are in this state, not many of them subscribe to truly liberal tax and spend policy. Socially liberal people are very often fiscally conservative. I've spent a good deal of time with Paul Ryan's Roadmap recently and most of it makes perfect sense to me though I could do without all the dewy-eyed references to times gone by that never really existed. I still detest Republicans for their nauseating social policies, hypocrisy, warmongering, harping back to "the good old days" that really sucked balls for most people and their total failure to act as the fiscally responsible party they advertise themselves as. That doesn't mean the Democrats are a paragon of virtue, it merely means that if forced to pick one of the two, the Democrats are IMO less revolting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Socially liberal people are very often fiscally conservative. I've spent a good deal of time with Paul Ryan's Roadmap recently and most of it makes perfect sense to me though I could do without all the dewy-eyed references to times gone by that never really existed. I still detest Republicans for their nauseating social policies, hypocrisy, warmongering, harping back to "the good old days" that really sucked balls for most people and their total failure to act as the fiscally responsible party they advertise themselves as. That doesn't mean the Democrats are a paragon of virtue, it merely means that if forced to pick one of the two, the Democrats are IMO less revolting. so in other words, you are finding yourself conservative when it comes to substance, but fiercely progressive when it comes to dewey eyed nostalgia and window dressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.