Yet those states -- the poorest, who have lost the most wealth -- also receive the most government benefits.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 01:03 PM | 0 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entr

Government benefits lead people into a life of poverty. You said it yourself.

Yet those states -- the poorest, who have lost the most wealth -- also receive the most government benefits.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 01:03 PM | 0 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entr

Government benefits lead people into a life of poverty. You said it yourself.

#1 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-21 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

I said it myself? Really? Where?

Stupid, you do realize that every word is from the article, no? Try reading the article and it will same you further embarrassment.

#2 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2012-02-21 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can see how you missed that. You are the one who posted those words from the article up on this site, are you not?

I didn't say you agreed with it, but the words have passed in front of your own eyes and you have repeated them and so are at least aware of them.

Your common sense seems to be deficient for someone with that moniker.

"Government benefits lead people into a life of poverty. You said it yourself."

He said nothing of the sort.

That makes you either stupid or a liar.

Or both.

.

I can see how you missed that. You are the one who posted those words from the article up on this site, are you not?

I didn't say you agreed with it, but the words have passed in front of your own eyes and you have repeated them and so are at least aware of them.

Your common sense seems to be deficient for someone with that moniker.

#3 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-21 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

???

I also posted an article titled "Mark Wahlberg claims he would have saved 9/11 flight". Doesn't mean I said it or agree with what he said.

Keep trying to twist your way out of your embarrassment.

#5 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2012-02-21 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

It means the information has passed your eyes and thus you are aware of it.

Can't understand the difference between being aware of something and agreeing with something?

My point is, by your posting of this article and the words you chose for the summary, you are at least aware that the states with the government benefits are the most stricken with poverty.

Maybe you and Dave can try to put your thought together and figure out how "you said it yourself" can work in the context in which I used it.

"Yet those states -- the poorest, who have lost the most wealth -- also receive the most government benefits."

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 01:03 PM | 6 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

For instance Commonsense. Who entered the above quoted information in the summary section of this thread?

"Maybe you and Dave can try to put your thought together and figure out how "you said it yourself" can work in the context in which I used it."

It doesn't "work in the context in which I used it", you douch-bag.

BTW, did you even bother to read the article?

.

Or both

Both.

In fact history has shown that it is during periods of regulatory breakdown, when so-called 'free market' ideologies prevailed as during the Hoover and GW Bush eras -- i.e. when government oversight was at its weakest -- that the greatest economic downturns happened.

Now you have the current clown car rturds running around saying even more deregulation is the key to fixing the mess that deregulation created.

#8 | Posted by Dave at 2012-02-21 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was making a tertiary point. In fact I have addressed more of the article than you have at this point.

It does work in the context in which I used it. The problem is, you seem to be having trouble understanding how it was used.

Commonsense typed (or copied and pasted) that information in the summary section of this thread. He entered it and thus is aware of it. Him re-typing or copying and pasting something from an article is like repeating something someone said verbally. Thus commonsense is aware of the information, iterating it himself.

So, when commonsense types the information I responded to into the summary, he is "saying it himself" meaning he is aware of, but not necessarily in agreement with, the information.

Either way, want to address the article any time soon?

Why are some States poorer than others:

Answer: The DIMOCRATS couldn't get to all of them fast enough with the GOBERMENT TIT. When the GOBERMENT TIT is at the ready all they have succeded in doing is creating a bunch of PUTRID WHINNEY ASS BASTARDS who don't work and expect the GOBERMENT to wipe thier butts and be thier mommy and Daddy too,,,

"Either way, want to address the article any time soon?"

Yeah...makes sense to me. And ties in very nicely with the whole racist/low IQ/conservative theme that's been floating around lately.

These red states aren't poor because they receive gov't assistance, they're poor because they consistently vote against their own economic best interests.

.

These red states aren't poor because they receive gov't assistance, they're poor because they consistently vote against their own economic best interests.

.

#13 | Posted by Dave at 2012-02-21 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would say that most states vote against their best interests. Especially states that keep voting in politicians.

Why Are Some States Poorer Than Others?

Becuase they're Blue.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 01:03 PM | 0 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entr

Government benefits lead people into a life of poverty. You said it yourself.

#1 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-21 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Like I said, keep twisting.

You've gone from saying "You said it yourself" to "you are at least aware that the states with the government benefits are the most stricken with poverty."

Almost as if I had said it myself. LOL.

"Yet those states -- the poorest, who have lost the most wealth -- also receive the most government benefits."

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 01:03 PM | 6 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

For instance Commonsense. Who entered the above quoted information in the summary section of this thread?

#7 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-21 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

I cut-n-pasted an article for discussion. YOU are the one who put quotes around text that was included in the article. Keep trying though.

Why Are Some States Poorer Than Others?

Becuase they're Blue.

#15 | Posted by wisgod at 2012-02-21 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

^^
Didn't read the article.

Answer: The DIMOCRATS couldn't get to all of them fast enough with the GOBERMENT TIT. When the GOBERMENT TIT is at the ready all they have succeded in doing is creating a bunch of PUTRID WHINNEY ASS BASTARDS who don't work and expect the GOBERMENT to wipe thier butts and be thier mommy and Daddy too,,,

#12 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2012-02-21 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The red states, with the GOP leaders and GOP voters are still going to try to pass the blame? What ever happened to accountability?

What ever happened to accountability?

#19 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2012-02-21 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

IT should be TRANSPARENT after HOPE and SWITCH ,,,

IT should be TRANSPARENT after HOPE and SWITCH ,,,

#20 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2012-02-21 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Really? That's your answer after having facts used to debase your rant? I'll take that as your way of admitting you simply don't have an answer.

Yeah...makes sense to me. And ties in very nicely with the whole racist/low IQ/conservative theme that's been floating around lately.

Don't forget accepting government aid while railing against it and claiming people should have to go without it.

Now you have the current clown car rturds running around saying even more deregulation is the key to fixing the mess that deregulation created.

#10 | Posted by 726

Well, if you're ship is taking on water after striking an iceberg, the best plan is to cut another hole for it to get out of. Deregulation is the same idea. Cut enough holes and the rising tide will trickle down on you.

This is another example on how to lie with statistics.

The CENSUS shows that the red states are growing, and the blue states are shrinking. So are people moving south because they want to be poorer or is this study just BS.

You have to factor in cost of living, or else the numbers are misleading to say the least. If you live in NY city, Boston or Philidephia it's very expensive to live up there so making a 100 grand a year is like making 200 grand in Arkansas. Nebraska is farm state, for example so of course if your measurement is per capita income without factoring in cost of living they will fair poorly. Arkansas and Missisippi are farm states and have been ranked among the poorest states since the 1800s and back then they were controlled by the Democrats.

The red state economies are growing, and the blue state economies are shrinking.

The article mentions the rust belt states, they were wiped out by the unions and the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party.

College Football is one of the most expensive sports in the country. Some of the poorest states in this study dominate in college football, how is that possible, how can a poor state beat out a rich state in an expensive sport, and not just once in a while, but consitantly? It's because this study is based on average salaries, and average numbers can be misleading.

If you have 5 people making million dollars a year, on average they make a million dollars each, but if you have 4 people making 10 grand a year, and then you factor in Warren Buffets salary the average for that group would hihger than the former mentioned.

Hollywood, Silcon Valey, Wall Street, and Maddison Avenue totaly skew the average numbers for there perspective states.

If hollywood moves to Arkansas that state would move up in the rankings, but not because the average joe got a huge increase in slalary.

The south has been dominated by the Democrtic Party all the way up to seventies, and then in eighties the Republicans took over and since then south has gotten wealthier not poorer.

The souhtern economies have been growing since the Republicans have taken over and the northern and west coast economies have been shrinking since the Democrats took over.

I would call this article a joke, but that would be an insult to jokes.

"and since then south has gotten wealthier not poorer."

"The south has been dominated by a plutocracy aligned with the Democrtic Party all the way up to seventies, and then in eighties the plutocracy was the same but now they were Republicans..."

See? Easily fixed.

#29 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

and since then south has gotten wealthier not poorer."

Check out "Personal Income Per Capita in Current Dollars, 2008" www.census.gov
---------------
Your link points out that the average salaries in the north and the west coast are higher than the south, but it's been that way for over 100 years long before the southern states voted for the Republican Party, and long before the northern/west coast states voted for the Democratic Party.

Since the nortern and west coast states have voted for the Democratic Party they have been losing in the CENSUS because their economies are shrinking.

Interesting the correlation with the number of US passport holders.

Population has a lot to do with it. The population of Montana, for example, is smaller than Doral, which is a subcity in Miami. So naturally Montana will be poorer than Florida.

Population has a lot to do with it. The population of Montana, for example, is smaller than Doral, which is a subcity in Miami. So naturally Montana will be poorer than Florida.

#33 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-22 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Limited space and high demand for residing in an area can certainly affected money prices in that area. The term "poorer" is highly subjective, do people in Montana consider themselves "poor"? My suspicion would be that they place much more value on being in Montana than spending more for the satisfaction of other wants in Miami.

#34 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

Its definitely worth missing out on a few bucks an hour to live here. I'll bet things are much cheaper in MT than FL. It's not hard to find a decent house with a shop on a few acres for less than $200k.

"Government benefits lead people into a life of poverty. You said it yourself."

Claiming that the government benefits are the cause of poverty is like claiming that the aspirin I took for a headache caused the headache.

Couldn't agree more Wurster; any loss in annual income is more than made up for cost and standard of living.

Montana is also a very well run state politically. We have enough sense to maintain a balance in party power and hold the pols accountable for the results of their actions. Having a part time legislature doesn't hurt either.

In fact history has shown that it is during periods of regulatory breakdown, when so-called 'free market' ideologies prevailed as during the Hoover and GW Bush eras -- i.e. when government oversight was at its weakest -- that the greatest economic downturns happened.

Now you have the current clown car rturds running around saying even more deregulation is the key to fixing the mess that deregulation created.

#10 | Posted by 726

...and during their Democrat successors, stayed down.

Claiming that the government benefits are the cause of poverty is like claiming that the aspirin I took for a headache caused the headache.

#36 | Posted by DCinMA

They are certainly responsible for the prevalence of poverty. The cost of the system thwarts savings and the safety net stifles initiative.