Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

State Debt Per Capita


Perchoutofwater
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nebraska $15. :tup:

 

That's a total debt of $90 then, seeing how only 6 people live there.

:wacko:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wacko:). 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :wacko:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information