Unemployment Numbers by Red State/ Blue State

[kevin21boston]

Just ran some numbers and here is what I came up with:




Average unemployment rate for Red States: 7.96%

Average unemployment rate for Blue States: 9.02%

Average unemployment rate for Purple States: 8.45%



Average weighted rate (higher population = higher weight/ TX's unemployment rate matters more than Alaska's) for Red States: 8.78%

Average weighted rate for Blue States: 9.04%

Average weighted rate for Purple States: 9.02%




And the most damming numbers. If you take the top 5 most conservative and most liberal states by their voting patterns in the last 4 elections, you get these numbers:


Most conservative: (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska): 6.2%

Most liberal: (DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii): 9.32%



Of the Red States, nine states have unemployment rates under 7% (Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana).

Of the Blue States, only New Mexico and Iowa (the 3rd and 1st "least liberal" liberal states) have unemployment rates under 7%.





In conclusion

Basically, if your state is strongly conservative, you have a job. If you live in a super liberal state, you don't have a job. If you look at the strongest overall economies in the nation right now, off the top of my head they are: North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Nebraska. While the worst hit economies are California, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Michigan.

If you still can't see it then I'll just tell you: Conservative states are better than liberal states.

Your rebuttals please!

[Prometheusch]

Basically, if your state is strongly conservative, you have a job. If you live in a super liberal state, you don't have a job. If you look at the strongest overall economies in the nation right now, off the top of my head they are: North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Nebraska. While the worst hit economies are California, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Michigan.

If you still can't see it then I'll just tell you: Conservative states are better than liberal states.

Your rebuttals please!

Florida is Liberal! What day of the week are you talking about? Though, Obama won the vote last year in this state...Florida is far from liberal. We voted for Bush in 2004! This state is 50/50. I know. I live here.

The reason Florida's economy is weak because most of its business is derived from tourism.... And if people in states like New York, Illinois, Maryland aren't making money, they aren't flying into Disney or the beaches to blow their savings on our economy.

[sideoutshu]

I just posted this as my update on facebook.

[theanalogkid]

What a misleading use of averages I've seen in awhile.

What determines what is a blue state or a red state or a purple state?

What type of professionals comprise the unemployed in each of these states? (Factory Worker vs Attorney)

What types of jobs are available in each of these states and what types of jobs are stable? (Farming vs Construction)

Is the unemployement in the Red States concentrated in blue areas and visa versa?

Washington DC isn't a state. Why are you including it in your averages?

These averages assume that all states with the exception of party affliation are equal, offer the same types of jobs, same industries are represented equally across all 50 states (GM's got a plant in Alaska!) and the sole reason some states are performing better in employment that others are because of voting patterns. Doesn't seem likely.

[XxsourdieselxX]

Just ran some numbers and here is what I came up with:




Average unemployment rate for Red States: 7.96%

Average unemployment rate for Blue States: 9.02%

Average unemployment rate for Purple States: 8.45%



Average weighted rate (higher population = higher weight/ TX's unemployment rate matters more than Alaska's) for Red States: 8.78%

Average weighted rate for Blue States: 9.04%

Average weighted rate for Purple States: 9.02%




And the most damming numbers. If you take the top 5 most conservative and most liberal states by their voting patterns in the last 4 elections, you get these numbers:


Most conservative: (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska): 6.2%

Most liberal: (DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii): 9.32%



Of the Red States, nine states have unemployment rates under 7% (Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana).

Of the Blue States, only New Mexico and Iowa (the 3rd and 1st "least liberal" liberal states) have unemployment rates under 7%.





In conclusion

Basically, if your state is strongly conservative, you have a job. If you live in a super liberal state, you don't have a job. If you look at the strongest overall economies in the nation right now, off the top of my head they are: North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Nebraska. While the worst hit economies are California, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Michigan.

If you still can't see it then I'll just tell you: Conservative states are better than liberal states.

Your rebuttals please!

pittsburgh is top city not affected by the recession, we are growing rapidly, and unemployment is low
we are also like 1 city to live, and 23 in the world, being from here i hear this on news and tv

[sideoutshu]

What a misleading use of averages I've seen in awhile.

What determines what is a blue state or a red state or a purple state?

What type of professionals comprise the unemployed in each of these states? (Factory Worker vs Attorney)

What types of jobs are available in each of these states and what types of jobs are stable? (Farming vs Construction)

Is the unemployement in the Red States concentrated in blue areas and visa versa?

Washington DC isn't a state. Why are you including it in your averages?

Did somebody say BUTTHURT?

PS. Introducing that word to the forum is the best thing NB ever did.

[theanalogkid]

Did somebody say BUTTHURT?

PS. Introducing that word to the forum is the best thing NB ever did.

Right, because pointing out flawed logic makes me butthurt. You're supposedly a lawyer, so you would know what a logical fallacy is, therefore I shouldn't have to go into an explaination. Are you going to have an adult coversation, or continue to act like a 5-year-old?

Obviously unemployement is going to be lower in states with lower population densities such as Nebraska. What is in Nebraska? Large tracts of farms meaning less people live there. Certain sectors are more resilient in bad economic times, this isn't rocket science. Unemployement doesn't take in account discouraged workers, people who have taken jobs at McDonald's where they would be otherwise working at a higher level job, people not recieving unemployement benefits, part time workers who want to work full time, but can not find a full time job, etc.

You also fail in assuming that I'm liberal, and that I am disgusted by these numbers, because they are attacking my side. I voted for Ron Paul last election, and I don't approve of the job Obama is doing.

[RicoVacilon]

Statistics like that are funny. :P

Florida isn't even 50/50. It's conservative through and through.

[sideoutshu]

Right, because pointing out flawed logic makes me butthurt. You're supposedly a lawyer, so you would know what a logical fallacy is, therefore I shouldn't have to go into an explaination. Are you going to have an adult coversation, or continue to act like a 5-year-old?

Actually, I just look for any excuse I can use to throw "butthurt" into discussions. So since you didn't get that I was joking, I guess I will just "continue to act like a 5 year old."

[whigsplittaz]

Lets compose a list of lies and cheats and thieves and war mongers and so on? Wow so if I moved to a conservative state I would have a job? Damn why didnt cnn or fox report this so we could end this recession?:rolleyes::confused:;)

[Gtrght77]

Not true about Utah, people are losing their jobs left and right there. At least a lot of people are still making 6 per hour though. There is nothing career wise in that state.


Not to mention those red states combined population don't even get close to just New Yorks population.

[Gtrght77]

Its not red or blue thats the comparison, it is more like Rural vs Urban areas.

[dsteve]

Statistics like that are funny. :P

Florida isn't even 50/50. It's conservative through and through.




you might be braindead? south florida, where most of the population is, is very heavy dem. All the old jews down here are die hard dem. The further you go north in florida, the more southern the people are as weird as that sounds. I live in florida, I think I'd know better than you and at the very least its a state that goes either way. it isnt really blue or red or conservative through and through. Last I checked our gov was a scumbag progressive Rep.

[whigsplittaz]

you might be braindead? south florida, where most of the population is, is very heavy dem. All the old jews down here are die hard dem. The further you go north in florida, the more southern the people are as weird as that sounds. I live in florida, I think I'd know better than you and at the very least its a state that goes either way. it isnt really blue or red or conservative through and through. Last I checked our gov was a scumbag progressive Rep.

LMFAO he lives in Florida too oops.

[dsteve]

and btw, the reason why blue states are failing is the high taxes on the "greedy corporations" that give everyone jobs. "rich" people, for example, are fleeing new york like nobodies beezwax. states with lower/no taxes like texas, are thriving in comparison. the same concept with apply if they try and tax "rich" people more nationwide....they will go to another country. This is why crap and tax will fail.

[dsteve]

LMFAO he lives in Florida too oops.



yeah, I live in florida and know the make up of the state. its not red or blue, its a swing state.

[Gtrght77]

I hope it all goes down soon... The system is broken and all we keep doing to it is putting a finger in the damn holes.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Did somebody say BUTTHURT?

PS. Introducing that word to the forum is the best thing NB ever did.

I thought "poopsmack" was the best word i ever brought to VG :D


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Just ran some numbers and here is what I came up with:




And the most damming numbers. If you take the top 5 most conservative and most liberal states by their voting patterns in the last 4 elections, you get these numbers:


Most conservative: (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska): 6.2%

Most liberal: (DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii): 9.32%



Your rebuttals please!

I'd love to see a population comparison between these 2 groups. New York probably has more people than all of those red states combined.

Screew the red state/blue state thing, simply find out how many registered Dems, Repubs and Independents are unemployed.

[xX SNAKE Xx]

We should all go work for AIG, it's bonus time...:eek:

[whigsplittaz]

yeah, I live in florida and know the make up of the state. its not red or blue, its a swing state.

I don't doubt you know the make up but I think Rico does as well not to mention the educational system. I think all states IMO are swing states. It is what it is. If the people feel someone is not doing their job they vote the other way. If people were really happy with Republicans and their ways they would have voted McShame in. It is simple to me. Same for Obama. If they feel he is not doing the job they will vote the other direction.

[kevin21boston]

Can you guys give me a detailed list of what you want me to explain or go into more depth about regarding the numbers? What makes them flawed, unreliable, etc?



As for NY skewing the stats, well...it doesn't. But for the sake of argument let's take New York out:

Top 5 most conservative states: (Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, Alaska)= 6.2% unemployment. Those five states make up a population of 7.2M. Weighted, the unemployment rate for these states equates to 5.91% unemployment (429,378 unemployed people compared to 7.2M people in those states).

Top 5 most liberal states, excluding New York and including DC (it has electoral votes- and yeah, it's technically not a state, but people live there :eek:)= 9.14% unemployment. Those 4 states + DC make up a population of 10M. Weighted, the unemployment rate for these bum states equates to 8.47% unemployment (800,658 unemployed peopel compared to the 10M people in those states and DC).


As for Florida, it is classified as a Purple State. The area that is getting hit the hardest in Florida is the Miami area, which happens to be heavily liberal. Hmmmm...


Also some more food for thought; Here are the large states and their situations:


California (super liberal): 11.5% unemployment. Also bankrupt.
New York (super liberal): 8.2% unemployment.

Florida (North is conservative, South is liberal): 10.2% unemployment


Texas (conservative): 7.1%



Bash the method and the numbers all you want, I'll be the first to say that they're not perfect, but the numbers are what they are. There is a clear conclusion that can be made from these numbers, and that conclusion is that left leaning states clearly have higher unemployment rates than their right winged counterparts. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Can you guys give me a detailed list of what you want me to explain or go into more depth about regarding the numbers? What makes them flawed, unreliable, etc?



As for NY skewing the stats, well...it doesn't. But for the sake of argument let's take New York out:

Top 5 most conservative states: (Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, Alaska)= 6.2% unemployment. Those five states make up a population of 7.2M. Weighted, the unemployment rate for these states equates to 5.91% unemployment (429,378 unemployed people compared to 7.2M people in those states).

Top 5 most liberal states, excluding New York and including DC (it has electoral votes- and yeah, it's technically not a state, but people live there :eek:)= 9.14% unemployment. Those 4 states + DC make up a population of 10M. Weighted, the unemployment rate for these bum states equates to 8.47% unemployment (800,658 unemployed peopel compared to the 10M people in those states and DC).


As for Florida, it is classified as a Purple State. The area that is getting hit the hardest in Florida is the Miami area, which happens to be heavily liberal. Hmmmm...


Also some more food for thought; Here are the large states and their situations:


California (super liberal): 11.5% unemployment. Also bankrupt.
New York (super liberal): 8.2% unemployment.

Florida (North is conservative, South is liberal): 10.2% unemployment


Texas (conservative): 7.1%



Bash the method and the numbers all you want, I'll be the first to say that they're not perfect, but the numbers are what they are. There is a clear conclusion that can be made from these numbers, and that conclusion is that left leaning states clearly have higher unemployment rates than their right winged counterparts. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Still waiting for the registered Repub, Dem and Independent #s. Screw the red state/blue state thing, that doesn't mean much of anything in the big picture.

What are your numbers? They are numbers separated by borders, that's all they all. Please note that every state but 2 (Nebraska and Vermont) have seen a rise in unemployment in latest over the month statistics, including one of your conservtive states, Idaho, being one of the highest going from 7.0% to 7.8%.

Unemployment is not a red vs blue problem. Employers do not ask people what political party they belong to before they decide to let them go or not.

.

[Gtrght77]

Its Urban areas that are hit hard, those 5 states you probably have one city over 250k between the 5 of them and I bet its only SLC Utah. Wyoming and Idaho are either farmers or minors.

Look at Nevada, its in deep shiz and its not really a blue state.

California also has a Republican Gov so I dont see how voting patterns really make unemployment rates higher.

[RicoVacilon]

you might be braindead? south florida, where most of the population is, is very heavy dem. All the old jews down here are die hard dem. The further you go north in florida, the more southern the people are as weird as that sounds. I live in florida, I think I'd know better than you and at the very least its a state that goes either way. it isnt really blue or red or conservative through and through. Last I checked our gov was a scumbag progressive Rep.

What is up with you calling people an idiot when they disagree with you? Like I said before, that is the logic of a lazy mind. You really should work better on your skills.

"Most of the population" is not in South Florida. The I-4 corridor is another megapolis and is highly red. There is also a huge Jewish demographic in SoFla that may lean Dem but will vote based on Israel.

Before Obama, Florida was read for at least 8 years. Red 2 Blue 1 does not make Florida blue or even a swing state. I know, I'm ignorant for thinking that.

[RicoVacilon]

As for Florida, it is classified as a Purple State. The area that is getting hit the hardest in Florida is the Miami area, which happens to be heavily liberal. Hmmmm...

That's funny, I don't hear anything on the local news about an employment crisis. :rolleyes:

[JoeJGibbs]

I just posted this as my update on facebook.
Tell me you were just joking.


Actually, I just look for any excuse I can use to throw "butthurt" into discussions. So since you didn't get that I was joking, I guess I will just "continue to act like a 5 year old."
lol You sound butthurt.



What a misleading use of averages I've seen in awhile.

What determines what is a blue state or a red state or a purple state?

What type of professionals comprise the unemployed in each of these states? (Factory Worker vs Attorney)

What types of jobs are available in each of these states and what types of jobs are stable? (Farming vs Construction)

Is the unemployement in the Red States concentrated in blue areas and visa versa?

Washington DC isn't a state. Why are you including it in your averages?

These averages assume that all states with the exception of party affliation are equal, offer the same types of jobs, same industries are represented equally across all 50 states (GM's got a plant in Alaska!) and the sole reason some states are performing better in employment that others are because of voting patterns. Doesn't seem likely.

Seriously? This never crossed any elses mind? Not even the author of this thread?

"I'll just come up with some statistics and leave out factors or confounds that might skew the results. Brilliant!"

Any time someone starts off with "I just ran some #'s" or "here's what I came up with" lmao, beware.

[JoeJGibbs]

Can you guys give me a detailed list of what you want me to explain or go into more depth about regarding the numbers? What makes them flawed, unreliable, etc?



As for NY skewing the stats, well...it doesn't. But for the sake of argument let's take New York out:

Top 5 most conservative states: (Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, Alaska)= 6.2% unemployment. Those five states make up a population of 7.2M. Weighted, the unemployment rate for these states equates to 5.91% unemployment (429,378 unemployed people compared to 7.2M people in those states).

Top 5 most liberal states, excluding New York and including DC (it has electoral votes- and yeah, it's technically not a state, but people live there :eek:)= 9.14% unemployment. Those 4 states + DC make up a population of 10M. Weighted, the unemployment rate for these bum states equates to 8.47% unemployment (800,658 unemployed peopel compared to the 10M people in those states and DC).


As for Florida, it is classified as a Purple State. The area that is getting hit the hardest in Florida is the Miami area, which happens to be heavily liberal. Hmmmm...


Also some more food for thought; Here are the large states and their situations:


California (super liberal): 11.5% unemployment. Also bankrupt.
New York (super liberal): 8.2% unemployment.

Florida (North is conservative, South is liberal): 10.2% unemployment


Texas (conservative): 7.1%



Bash the method and the numbers all you want, I'll be the first to say that they're not perfect, but the numbers are what they are. There is a clear conclusion that can be made from these numbers, and that conclusion is that left leaning states clearly have higher unemployment rates than their right winged counterparts. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
7828

[dsteve]

I don't doubt you know the make up but I think Rico does as well not to mention the educational system. I think all states IMO are swing states. It is what it is. If the people feel someone is not doing their job they vote the other way. If people were really happy with Republicans and their ways they would have voted McShame in. It is simple to me. Same for Obama. If they feel he is not doing the job they will vote the other direction.


mcshame? lol. Mccain is just a lighter version of your savior barrack hussein obama, although I like mccain much more personally than obama, he's still for big government but not in the extreme sense that obama is.

[dsteve]

and what you should be looking at instead of population is the liberal policies of the failing states like high taxes on everything, "green" regulations and blah blah blah. New jersey, New York and Cali are all in **** shape and they all induce those policies.

[SUPDOG]

You don't need statistics to come to the conclusion that liberals are all about being without a job and in turn living off of the government.

I think I read GT actually attempting to argue points within this thread. He does this as he sits back and breast feeds off of big mommy government. How much effort have you put into finding a new job GT? Hmmm, I bet the "real effort" will come a week or two after that last unemployment check comes in.......whenever that will be. Disgusting.

I can give you story after story of liberals abusing the unemployment/welfare systems, and I have many times. Gt/NEvada, etc. will tell you that the abusers are "the exception". Please get a clue.

You won't many "true conservatives" who would live off of the government dime, but the class envy, lazy, Obama supporters do it without a second thought. They are "entitled" to other people's money, ya know?

I recieved a very bad injury to my back two weeks ago. I can barely get out of my chair at times, but as soon as the rain subsides I will be back at it 10/12/ 18/ 20 hour days. I could pack it in and find a way to live off of the govt., but nope GT needs a new video game so he and NB can get some relief from their stress filled lives. Yep, all in support of my fellow man. Or shall we say my fellow lazy man! :eek:

[dsteve]

If you make it comfortable to be poor, the poor will never dig themselves out. That's the idea behind socialism. If the people rely on the government, they will never rise up against it. If they stay poor, they vote for whoever promises them the most money. The rule of law means nothing to these people. The income tax violates the constitution and yet nobody cared then, and it's too late now. A flat tax or a fair tax would make much more common sense but neither side would dare try to destroy the messed up system we have now. for the dems, its their vehicle to "spread wealth" and for the reps it's a means to do favors for special intrest big biz (dems do the same thing here as well.) Look at New york and cali.....the taxes go up and up and up but the income for the state goes down because people that are making money either stop making as much money or move to a state with less taxes.


How is it not a violation of individual rights to own property to tax someone more by percentage because they can afford it? I guess it's for the common good? I guess private property is okay as long as you do what the government wants you to do? Big brother knows best?


"the theory of the Communist may be summed up in one single sentence: Abolition of private property" - Karl Marx.

[RicoVacilon]

You're right that both sides get too much out of our messed up tax system. It's very unlikely to change significantly as long as what starts out as a simple bill gets treated like a ball of duct tape rolled down a pile a s---.

As for income tax being unconstitutional--a lot of people SAY that, but I've yet to hear them quote what part of the Constitution proves that. The Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to levy taxes. I will admit that's about all I remember. So if there's something else in there that shows a fed income tax is unconstitutional point me to it. I'm all for the Constitution.

[JoeJGibbs]

Just a thought, if you're going to conduct a "study" about something like this - why not look at the percentages over a span of different presidents, or whether or not the state was blue/red @ that time vs...

"Look at these #'s I collected. They're facts!"

You have to spend time when sampling and gathering data. You can't just look up #s and do math in an hour and issue them as reality

Need more input Johnny 5 :p

[Gtrght77]

You don't need statistics to come to the conclusion that liberals are all about being without a job and in turn living off of the government.

I think I read GT actually attempting to argue points within this thread. He does this as he sits back and breast feeds off of big mommy government. How much effort have you put into finding a new job GT? Hmmm, I bet the "real effort" will come a week or two after that last unemployment check comes in.......whenever that will be. Disgusting.

I can give you story after story of liberals abusing the unemployment/welfare systems, and I have many times. Gt/NEvada, etc. will tell you that the abusers are "the exception". Please get a clue.

You won't many "true conservatives" who would live off of the government dime, but the class envy, lazy, Obama supporters do it without a second thought. They are "entitled" to other people's money, ya know?

I recieved a very bad injury to my back two weeks ago. I can barely get out of my chair at times, but as soon as the rain subsides I will be back at it 10/12/ 18/ 20 hour days. I could pack it in and find a way to live off of the govt., but nope GT needs a new video game so he and NB can get some relief from their stress filled lives. Yep, all in support of my fellow man. Or shall we say my fellow lazy man! :eek:


There is much more to life then just working to work. Please don't act like you know me, I wouldnt have anything to do with anyone like you outside of this site. I paid into that system and it takes more and pays more then any state in the United States. God fobid that insurance actually pays you back once in a while. Go read that bible you pretend to follow.

Nobody likes you, cares what you think or would care if you were gone.

[Gtrght77]

Just a thought, if you're going to conduct a "study" about something like this - why not look at the percentages over a span of different presidents, or whether or not the state was blue/red @ that time vs...

"Look at these #'s I collected. They're facts!"

You have to spend time when sampling and gathering data. You can't just look up #s and do math in an hour and issue them as reality

Need more input Johnny 5 :p

Wow you just broke down DuhSpecialBus without even knowing it.

[dsteve]

You're right that both sides get too much out of our messed up tax system. It's very unlikely to change significantly as long as what starts out as a simple bill gets treated like a ball of duct tape rolled down a pile a s---.

As for income tax being unconstitutional--a lot of people SAY that, but I've yet to hear them quote what part of the Constitution proves that. The Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to levy taxes. I will admit that's about all I remember. So if there's something else in there that shows a fed income tax is unconstitutional point me to it. I'm all for the Constitution.


Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


UNIFORM, as in "rich" people paying more, unconstitutional not to mention that the taxes talked about have nothing to do with an income tax but more like things such as sales tax. the orginal income tax was supposed to only be on the top 1 percent and was something minimal like 3-5 percent of income. sound familar? now look who pays income tax....EVERYBODY! look up the 16th amendment, which is unconstitutional.

[dsteve]

here it is, maybe you should read it.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con1.8.1

[SUPDOG]

There is much more to life then just working to work. Please don't act like you know me, I wouldnt have anything to do with anyone like you outside of this site. I paid into that system and it takes more and pays more then any state in the United States. God fobid that insurance actually pays you back once in a while. Go read that bible you pretend to follow.

Nobody likes you, cares what you think or would care if you were gone.

Translation: "You are right Supdog, I am ashamed, but I am not man enough to really look for a job. I like easy street and I will call you names, make it seem like it is you and not me, and therefore justify my freeloading."


That about right? :p

[dsteve]

doesnt he live in cali....which is bankrupt? dont you see the connection?

[Gtrght77]

doesnt he live in cali....which is bankrupt? dont you see the connection?

You seem to know about as much as SupDog does, I was in Washington and moved to Vegas which is above 10% unemployment.

[Gtrght77]

Translation: "You are right Supdog, I am ashamed, but I am not man enough to really look for a job. I like easy street and I will call you names, make it seem like it is you and not me, and therefore justify my freeloading."


That about right? :p

Sure, if it makes you feel better.

They just give you money and you don't even have to look for a job. :rolleyes:

[Gtrght77]

I guess it has nothing to do with the amount of people unemployed fighting over the few jobs that are available. Those that are in this area tend to be low pay or temp jobs that will end you up just being unemployed again at the end of the summer.


400-500 people applying for a 6.00 an hour job.

[SUPDOG]

I guess it has nothing to do with the amount of people unemployed fighting over the few jobs that are available. Those that are in this area tend to be low pay or temp jobs that will end you up just being unemployed again at the end of the summer.


400-500 people applying for a 6.00 an hour job.

Garbage...............

[dsteve]

so you lost your job in DC and then moved to vegas? is that right? lol sorry i dont know your life story. Pretty sure DC is a liberal **** hole as well. whats your edcuation level and what kind of job are you looking for?

[Nevada_Ballin]

gotta laugh at the "only liberals are poor" mentality going on here.....


.

[dsteve]

gotta laugh at the "only liberals are poor" mentality going on here.....


.





great post son. really added to the topic....:rolleyes: no, the theme is that huge taxes = job loss and failing states that cry for bail outs from the states that dont suck. im just wondering if you can read? seriously?

[theanalogkid]

great post son. really added to the topic....:rolleyes: no, the theme is that huge taxes = job loss and failing states that cry for bail outs from the states that dont suck. im just wondering if you can read? seriously?

Like I said in another topic.

The Blue States Subsidize the Red States (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html). No conservative seems to mind this type of socialism.

[Nevada_Ballin]

great post son. really added to the topic....:rolleyes: no, the theme is that huge taxes = job loss and failing states that cry for bail outs from the states that dont suck. im just wondering if you can read? seriously?

From within this thread.........



You don't need statistics to come to the conclusion that liberals are all about being without a job and in turn living off of the government.


On a separate note, keep having that attitide with me and your next vacation is going to be much longer.


.

[SUPDOG]

From within this thread.........





On a separate note, keep having that attitide with me and your next vacation is going to be much longer.


.

My vacation? Never happened.

You aren't one of those "bait and ban" moderators are you? :p

[dsteve]

lol, then stop trolling?

[dsteve]

Like I said in another topic.

The Blue States Subsidize the Red States (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html). No conservative seems to mind this type of socialism.



care to explain the chart?

[Nevada_Ballin]

My vacation? Never happened.

You aren't one of those "bait and ban" moderators are you? :p

not you..............


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

lol, then stop trolling?

How about if you stop being a jackass instead. One more wisecrack and it's over.


.

[RicoVacilon]

no, the theme is that huge taxes = job loss and failing states that cry for bail outs from the states that dont suck. im just wondering if you can read? seriously?

Like I mentioned before, why do you continue to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant, an idiot, or illiterate? That is the work of a truly lazy mind. I've got news for you--I've had people disagree with me who were a HELL of a lot smarter than me.

As for your point: you mention Florida being one of these states in horrible financial state. And you mention that these states in horrible financial state overtax. Yet Florida has no state income tax. Surely you can see the circular logic you're using.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

In all the back and forth I haven't really seen any real rebuttal for the numbers presented. There is nothing specious about compiling unemployment data by state and then segregating those states by policital "leaning". I don't know if it is a cause and effect relationship but it isn't particularily a leap to think that the actions of the government in a state will play a role in the job market of that state.

Instead of the knee-jerk partisan reaction that starts with a need to disprove or discredit anything that doesn't support your view why not just take the numbers for what they are and ask the big question which is "is there a direct link between the policy of state governments and the prosperity of that state". If you cut through the noise that is basically his interpretation of the numbers.

Nothing gets solved if the only goal is to attack any point of view from the other side...

-TS

[sideoutshu]

gotta laugh at the "only liberals are poor" mentality going on here.....


.

Silly post. Completely off the point. Of course not only liberals are poor. But I would say that more liberals are content to stay poor and live off the govt.

[sideoutshu]

care to explain the chart?

Yes, please do explain.

[JoeJGibbs]

In all the back and forth I haven't really seen any real rebuttal for the numbers presented. There is nothing specious about compiling unemployment data by state and then segregating those states by policital "leaning". I don't know if it is a cause and effect relationship but it isn't particularily a leap to think that the actions of the government in a state will play a role in the job market of that state.

Instead of the knee-jerk partisan reaction that starts with a need to disprove or discredit anything that doesn't support your view why not just take the numbers for what they are and ask the big question which is "is there a direct link between the policy of state governments and the prosperity of that state". If you cut through the noise that is basically his interpretation of the numbers.

Nothing gets solved if the only goal is to attack any point of view from the other side...

-TS

If you're going to conduct a "study" about something like this - why not look at the percentages over a span of different presidents, or whether or not the state was blue/red @ that time?

Or you could try to measure all of these things w/economic status or economic growth of our country at the period in question and then cross compare the periods. Wars? Recessions? Natural disasters? Aliens? Ruining the Star Wars movies with prequels :p
Anything that could/would/has effected employment.

You'd be able to draw a comparison and come to a conclusion much easier than just posting data that may or may not hold true to what your hypothesis was.

A conclusion that would have solid data, backed up by more data.
He could be exactly right, but without more data collection its not logical to wrap up the study and say...
"Earth shattering data here! Ya can disagree if ya want but its right here in black and white nan nanny boo boo."

It's easiest to do the smallest amount of work possible and try to issue it as gospel.

[dsteve]

Like I mentioned before, why do you continue to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant, an idiot, or illiterate? That is the work of a truly lazy mind. I've got news for you--I've had people disagree with me who were a HELL of a lot smarter than me.

As for your point: you mention Florida being one of these states in horrible financial state. And you mention that these states in horrible financial state overtax. Yet Florida has no state income tax. Surely you can see the circular logic you're using.



where did i say florida was failing? can you read? the argument was if florida was a red or blue state and it's mixed, not conservative like you or someone like you tried to say. surely you can see that you have no point, as usual.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Silly post. Completely off the point. Of course not only liberals are poor. But I would say that more liberals are content to stay poor and live off the govt.

Can't be "off point" since I'm referring to an earlier post in this thread.

Now liberal-minded people are poor AND lazy too - and happy to be that way.... hilarious.

Supdog's comment "liberals are all about being without a job and in turn living off of the government" indicates they must also be poor because poor people are the ones who need/seek gov help + yours indicating they are also lazy by using the word "content".

.

[SUPDOG]

Can't be "off point" since I'm referring to an earlier post in this thread.

Now liberal-minded people are poor AND lazy too - and happy to be that way.... hilarious.

Supdog's comment "liberals are all about being without a job and in turn living off of the government" indicates they must also be poor because poor people are the ones who need/seek gov help + yours indicating they are also lazy by using the word "content".

.

Please don't put words in my mouth......



But yes, a majority of liberals--i.e. those who voted for Obama are more likely to receive government benefits. Why does this FACT anger you so?

Not all liberals are poor and lazy, however, those who are poor and lazy are MUCH more likely to be liberal. You can't maintain an honest debate without acknowledging this reality.

hmmmm, I wonder why so angry?

[theanalogkid]

Yes, please do explain.

It doesn't take a lot to figure out what the chart says. For ever $1 per federal tax that comes from the state, the state gets X dollars in return. New Jersey gets $0.61 per dollar sent in to the federal government, meaning they lose $0.39 per dollar. Where as other states may receive more $1 back from the federal government.

[whigsplittaz]

Please don't put words in my mouth......



But yes, a majority of liberals--i.e. those who voted for Obama are more likely to receive government benefits. Why does this FACT anger you so?

Not all liberals are poor and lazy, however, those who are poor and lazy are MUCH more likely to be liberal. You can't maintain an honest debate without acknowledging this reality.

hmmmm, I wonder why so angry?

Data on the "fact" please.......................

This I can not wait to see.

[dsteve]

Data on the "fact" please.......................

This I can not wait to see.


your party runs on the slogan of "being for the working man",(bull****) which tranlates into poor people. poor and poor minorities historically have voted dem because the dems openly promise them money from other people pockets. how is that not a fact?


the chart, as i thought it would being that your explanation was the one i figured on, has many different factors for its influence and does not equal blue states supporting red states.

[RicoVacilon]

here it is, maybe you should read it.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con1.8.1

I did. Thanks for linking it. I still see nothing unconstritutional about federal income taxes though.

Just out of curiosity--do you pay yours?

[RicoVacilon]

Now liberal-minded people are poor AND lazy too - and happy to be that way.... hilarious.

Don't forget illiterate too.

Oh and ignorant.

And I'm pretty sure I've seen retarded thrown around.

[RicoVacilon]

poor and poor minorities historically have voted dem because the dems openly promise them money from other people pockets. how is that not a fact?

First off I'm confused by separating "poor" people from "poor minorities." Doesn't just saying "poor" cover both groups? Does the need to add "poor minorities" as well hint at what your true agenda is?

And secondly, so what? Let those with much give much. Let those with little give what they are able. Those are words to live by.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Please don't put words in my mouth......



But yes, a majority of liberals--i.e. those who voted for Obama are more likely to receive government benefits. Why does this FACT anger you so?

Not all liberals are poor and lazy, however, those who are poor and lazy are MUCH more likely to be liberal. You can't maintain an honest debate without acknowledging this reality.

hmmmm, I wonder why so angry?

Really??????? Ok, here's your chance.... prove it.... "put up or shut up" as the old saying goes :)

Secondly, i didn't put words in your mouth, i quoted you exactly.

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Don't forget illiterate too.

Oh and ignorant.

And I'm pretty sure I've seen retarded thrown around.

Yes, they love the "ignorant" label... a lot... lol. And that's 90% of their problem, they love to "box and label" people. Maybe it's that "us vs them" attitude they have.

.

[RicoVacilon]

Yes, they love the "ignorant" label... a lot... lol. And that's 90% of their problem, they love to "box and label" people. Maybe it's that "us vs them" attitude they have.

.

There IS an Us vs Them goin on right now. But it's not Rep vs Dem!!!!

[MonoxideChild]

You know what I've noticed? Most people that talk about the "poor", and how poor people are lazy and are getting screwed, aren't poor people. I think there is a sort of condescension that poor people lack the ability to change their situation and would rather "scuk on the teet". Most people that are considered poor are actually on their way back from some reason of being jobless or homeless. I know that there are people that would love to be lazy and not do anything, and have kids to cash in another check, but unfortunately for the crying dems and the crying gop, there's not as many as they like to say. As far as what affects unemployment, I'm not an economics major, so I couldn't give you a concrete answer outside of the variables that happen from locality to locality.

[theanalogkid]

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


UNIFORM, as in "rich" people paying more, unconstitutional not to mention that the taxes talked about have nothing to do with an income tax but more like things such as sales tax. the orginal income tax was supposed to only be on the top 1 percent and was something minimal like 3-5 percent of income. sound familar? now look who pays income tax....EVERYBODY! look up the 16th amendment, which is unconstitutional.

Actually it's talking about UNIFORM as in Geographic Uniformity. (Ie, the federal income taxes rates are the same in South Carolina, as they are in North Dakota)

[Gtrght77]

ANother thing about Utah is the high amount of Retired people who move here so the unemployment #s are slightly off because of it.

[dsteve]

First off I'm confused by separating "poor" people from "poor minorities." Doesn't just saying "poor" cover both groups? Does the need to add "poor minorities" as well hint at what your true agenda is?

And secondly, so what? Let those with much give much. Let those with little give what they are able. Those are words to live by.



lol wow....so i guess youre a marxist? okay, well my country isnt all about that so GTFO. Individual rights and rights to private property still matter to me and anyone with a brain. true agenda? so here comes the "oh no, hes a racist" bull****. I guess it isnt a fact that blacks and hispanics vote dem because dems promise them money from other peoples pockets? I wouldnt say all poor people and I wouldnt say all minorities but generally dems play to the poor minority. is that not a fact?

how can i not say youre ignorant when youre gonna basically qoute something out of the marxist playbook and not even know what it is? go read a history book. To each what they are able....seriously? lol

[dsteve]

Actually it's talking about UNIFORM as in Geographic Uniformity. (Ie, the federal income taxes rates are the same in South Carolina, as they are in North Dakota)



so why did they need the 16th amendment? which again, was supposed to be the top 1 percent and ended up being 50/60 percent? the progressive tax rate is immoral and unconstitutional.

[dsteve]

I did. Thanks for linking it. I still see nothing unconstritutional about federal income taxes though.

Just out of curiosity--do you pay yours?


what the **** do you care?

[Gtrght77]

I thought they voted Dem because the GOP was the party of the KKK and the Southern Racists.

[Gtrght77]

Why don't you just rename this thread, States with high amounts of Mormons(other then Neveda) have lower rates of unemployment?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/job_losses.html

Watch that timeline, its sick.

[RicoVacilon]

You know what I've noticed? Most people that talk about the "poor", and how poor people are lazy and are getting screwed, aren't poor people. I think there is a sort of condescension that poor people lack the ability to change their situation and would rather "scuk on the teet". Most people that are considered poor are actually on their way back from some reason of being jobless or homeless. I know that there are people that would love to be lazy and not do anything, and have kids to cash in another check, but unfortunately for the crying dems and the crying gop, there's not as many as they like to say. As far as what affects unemployment, I'm not an economics major, so I couldn't give you a concrete answer outside of the variables that happen from locality to locality.

There are some people who are poor by their own doing. There are other people who are poor because of no fault of their own. That is accurate.

If you ask me, we shouldn't have any poor people in this country regardless of who's fault it is that they are poor.

[RicoVacilon]

lol wow....so i guess youre a marxist?

Actually, I was quoting the Bible. Marx, however, was an excellent analyst. If all you think of when you hear Marx is communism, then you, my friend, are in need of an education.


okay, well my country isnt all about that so GTFO.

Actually, there is nothing at all in any of our founding documents espousing laissez faire capitalism. So I'm not sure where this "social democracy is un-American!" thing came from.


how can i not say youre ignorant when youre gonna basically qoute something out of the marxist playbook and not even know what it is? go read a history book. To each what they are able....seriously? lol

Ah, so you DID think it was Marx! Get yo azz to church boy!!!

By the way, you are now on ignore considering that fact that in 6 pages you have offered nothing constructive to the conversation but name calling and saying people who are obviously better educated than you are stupid.

[RicoVacilon]

what the **** do you care?

So you do. You are therefore a ball-less hypocrite. Thanks for playing. :D

[sideoutshu]

Can't be "off point" since I'm referring to an earlier post in this thread.

Now liberal-minded people are poor AND lazy too - and happy to be that way.... hilarious.

Supdog's comment "liberals are all about being without a job and in turn living off of the government" indicates they must also be poor because poor people are the ones who need/seek gov help + yours indicating they are also lazy by using the word "content".

.

Ya, that is accurate. I would say a high % of the unemployed democrats in this country are just plain lazy and content to sit in government housing, popping out child after irresponsible child in order to get a bigger piece of entitlement programs.

[sideoutshu]

Not all liberals are poor and lazy, however, those who are poor and lazy are MUCH more likely to be liberal. You can't maintain an honest debate without acknowledging this reality.

BAM!

Reminds me of my favorite T-shirt:

"Republicans.........working hard so you don't have to!"

[sideoutshu]

First off I'm confused by separating "poor" people from "poor minorities." Doesn't just saying "poor" cover both groups? Does the need to add "poor minorities" as well hint at what your true agenda is?

And secondly, so what? Let those with much give much. Let those with little give what they are able. Those are words to live by.

Not at all man. Minorites are promised an entirely different set of entitlements by the democrats in addition to what the poor are promised (bullsh*t affirmative action programs for example).

[sideoutshu]

Yes, they love the "ignorant" label... a lot... lol. And that's 90% of their problem, they love to "box and label" people. Maybe it's that "us vs them" attitude they have.

.
Hypocrisy much?

[sideoutshu]

ANother thing about Utah is the high amount of Retired people who move here so the unemployment #s are slightly off because of it.

Retired people don't count in unemployment figures. If they did, Florida would have 30% unemployment annually.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Hypocrisy much?

Not really.......

.

[RicoVacilon]

Not at all man. Minorites are promised an entirely different set of entitlements by the democrats in addition to what the poor are promised (bullsh*t affirmative action programs for example).

That makes a bit more sense. Hasn't AA kind of fallen by the wayside though? Don't hear much about it lately.

[dsteve]

So you do. You are therefore a ball-less hypocrite. Thanks for playing. :D

You have no idea what I do, it's my money, not yours. again why the **** do you care? Do I pay my taxes? Youre forced 2. they come right out of my check. As for my income taxes, it's none of your business how much I make or what I do for a living.



oh noes, im on ignore because i made your brain hurt? What part of the bible are you qouting there buddy? Nice forcing of your religion on me. who said I was even christian? I just assume thats what you claim to be based on you using the "bible"? what happened to tolerance? lol marxism is like the seed that grows the tree with the different branches of totalitarian isms. Socialism is a complete violation of property rights which is in fact does violate the constitution. Making two classes of people, Tax payers and tax eaters, doesnt work. Why should my money go towards some stupid entitlement program I will never use at a higher rate than the people using it? chairity isnt charity if it's forced on you through taxiation.

[dsteve]

That makes a bit more sense. Hasn't AA kind of fallen by the wayside though? Don't hear much about it lately.

do you ever watch the news? Look up New Haven CT firefighters.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Ya, that is accurate. I would say a high % of the unemployed democrats in this country are just plain lazy and content to sit in government housing, popping out child after irresponsible child in order to get a bigger piece of entitlement programs.

A high percent... care to put a number on that "high percent"?

.

[RicoVacilon]

Could you really label the people that abuse the system as "Democrats"? If I were to guesstimate, I would say those people haven't voted ever in their life. So I'm not sure why they're "Democrats."

[sideoutshu]

A high percent... care to put a number on that "high percent"?

.

Too high.......

[sideoutshu]

Could you really label the people that abuse the system as "Democrats"? If I were to guesstimate, I would say those people haven't voted ever in their life. So I'm not sure why they're "Democrats."

There are people that abuse the system on both sides, however the democrats' entire platform is based upon an entitlement philosophy and "spreading the wealth". Hence, it breeds irresponsible people who don't pull their own weight in society. Worse yet, they feel no shame for their lack of responsibility because Obama and other democrats have taught them that it's "not their fault".

[RicoVacilon]

I think we should first and foremost help people that are poor regardless of whose fault it is. That doesn't mean we should accept the abusers, but that help should come first and then addressing abuse should come second.

And as I've stated before, I have no problem distributing the wealth. I see it as morally and ethically superior to free market capitalism which preaches to the haves while ignoring the have nots

[sideoutshu]

I think we should first and foremost help people that are poor regardless of whose fault it is. That doesn't mean we should accept the abusers, but that help should come first and then addressing abuse should come second.

And as I've stated before, I have no problem distributing the wealth. I see it as morally and ethically superior to free market capitalism which preaches to the haves while ignoring the have nots

You know who the "haves" are? They are the hard working innovators who spend their lives makign sure America has the ighest standard of living because the have an INCENTIVE TO DO SO. Here is an example:

What happens when you take away the incentive (ability to profit) from the pharmaceutical industry>

Answer: You no longer see hundreds of millions of dollars going toward research and development and many drugs that our medical providers rely upon today never would have been invented.

That is just one example, but it applies across the board.

[SUPDOG]

I think we should first and foremost help people that are poor regardless of whose fault it is. That doesn't mean we should accept the abusers, but that help should come first and then addressing abuse should come second.

And as I've stated before, I have no problem distributing the wealth. I see it as morally and ethically superior to free market capitalism which preaches to the haves while ignoring the have nots

Exactly........................................... ...........

Wow, liberals have thick skulls submerged in partisan delusional la-la land.

I can't believe we are having the argumant that more conservatives abuse govt. programs than liberals.

How can you debate people who are 100% clueless?!?

[RicoVacilon]

If we are the greatest nation on Earth (which I believe we are) then we are able to eliminate poverty while at the same time allowing for profit and the motivation that comes from that profit.

To say that social democracy and entrepreneurial spirit are mutually exclusive would be inaccurate.

[dsteve]

If we are the greatest nation on Earth (which I believe we are) then we are able to eliminate poverty while at the same time allowing for profit and the motivation that comes from that profit.

To say that social democracy and entrepreneurial spirit are mutually exclusive would be inaccurate.



why dont you go ask europe how social democracy works? The answer is, it doesnt. The united states is a republic, not a democracy. READ A HISTORY BOOK

[Gtrght77]

If we are the greatest nation on Earth (which I believe we are) then we are able to eliminate poverty while at the same time allowing for profit and the motivation that comes from that profit.

To say that social democracy and entrepreneurial spirit are mutually exclusive would be inaccurate.

LOL

All we are is the greatest Military nation.

[Gtrght77]

why dont you go ask europe how social democracy works? The answer is, it doesnt. The united states is a republic, not a democracy. READ A HISTORY BOOK

We are neither a true republic nor a democracy,

[theanalogkid]

so why did they need the 16th amendment? which again, was supposed to be the top 1 percent and ended up being 50/60 percent? the progressive tax rate is immoral and unconstitutional.

Because income tax was ruled by the SCOTUS to be a direct tax, and as such had to be apportioned with respect to the population of the sates which is pretty much unrealistic and impossible to do. The 16th Amendment overruled the ruling of the SCOTUS and allowed the income tax to be levied without apportionment.

As for your thoughts on the progressive tax systems, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a progressive tax system. The economy actually functions better with a progressive tax system as there is a greater incentive for the top business owners to not take a big of a salary and rather have the company reinvest the money and grow, providing more jobs to people. Even Adam Smith said it was a good idea to have the top taxed at a higher percentage than the bottom.

[RicoVacilon]

All we are is the greatest Military nation.

Which nation, do you feel, is the greatest then?

Don't get me wrong--certain acts done on behalf of our nation sicken me, but at the end of the day I have a positive outlook on what this nation is SUPPOSED to be.

[Gtrght77]

Which nation, do you feel, is the greatest then?

Don't get me wrong--certain acts done on behalf of our nation sicken me, but at the end of the day I have a positive outlook on what this nation is SUPPOSED to be.


I haven't traveled enough to comment on who could be the greatest but I am not going to say the US is the best just because I live here.

Education wise we are low on the list.

Health we are low.

Life expectancy we are low.

We suck at everything other then trying to be the big bad empire with our military. Our time is coming soon though. The bigger you are the harder you fall.

[RicoVacilon]

Education wise we are low on the list.

As an educator I tell you--this is patently false. It is a myth that was fabricated and embraced by the powers that be regardless of faction. I'm not sure the motivation for it, but somehow it stuck. That isn't to say that we don't need to fix parts of our education system, but all the studies and surveys you see about once every two months showing our education system is horrible are usually statistical prestidigitation in order to prove the point of the special interest group funding said research.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Too high.......

Ok, so what number is it? You must have some idea if you're willing to say "high percent" and "too high"?


.

[sideoutshu]

Ok, so what number is it? You must have some idea if you're willing to say "high percent" and "too high"?


.

A number that is hgiher then it should be.

[Gtrght77]

I am sure the GOP trailor living southern hillbilly will balance out those numbers.

I don't think there will be great statistics on this until after the census.

[MonoxideChild]

Actually in most states, it's impossible to just sit back and have babies for paychecks. Many states have a cap on how much you can take in from state funding. So that argument is going nowhere. The same with people just itting back because they're lazy. Sooner or later their benefits will run out and they'll be screwed. Plus, most states also require you to join some sort of job search program, or have you turn in papers every week that show when and where you applied for employment, which they check. You guys are taking the wrong argument against statist welfare. A much better argument against it is that they make it harder to get out of the programs people are in than to get out of it. Our current government, run by both the GOP and the Dems, would love to have everyone on some sort of assistance, as they would then have much more say and much more power in our personal lives.

[Nevada_Ballin]

You know who the "haves" are? They are the hard working innovators who spend their lives makign sure America has the ighest standard of living because the have an INCENTIVE TO DO SO. Here is an example:

What happens when you take away the incentive (ability to profit) from the pharmaceutical industry>

Answer: You no longer see hundreds of millions of dollars going toward research and development and many drugs that our medical providers rely upon today never would have been invented.

That is just one example, but it applies across the board.

So you are implying that it is only Republicans who are at the heart and soul of what America has been and should be?

Yet, i sit here with my "liberal-minded" self and look back on the things I've done and i am doing now and i say to myself.... "sideout has no idea what he's talking about". I started out as a blue-collar guy. Worked my asz off at every job i've ever had. I've lived on the poorest of poor side of the tracks and the good side. I've single-parented twins - one a special needs child - AND paid child support while having legal custody of my kids (don't ask how that worked, i'm STILL trying to get those thousands of dollars back). But i continued to fight the good fight. I didn't dump myself into government help and cry "oh woe is me, the USA needs to help me"

I didn't need any government-lobbied incentive to do better. All i needed was the "want to" and the drive to do so..... and i did so. I'm not the exception to the liberal-minded rule. I'm actully a good example of a true liberal-minded person. Someone who is liberal-minded believes in total free-thinking without being tied to specific group and their way of believing how life should be. they do what they need to do to live a good life. They don't rely on others. That includes politics and religion.

Those people who belong to political parties or religious groups have given up on their own ability to think freely. It's much easier to live inside the boxed ideologies of their groups than it is to step out of that pre-made container of another's beliefs and constuct their own set if ideologies. It would be too scary. Someone might call you a "marxist" or a "communist" or a "socialist" or a "martian" if you aren't on board with the mainstream thought - even if your own ideologies have nothing to do with being a "marxist" or a "communist" or a "socialist" or a "martian".

To think freely is the greatest gift this country has ever given anyone. Too bad so many people are caught up in the whole "left/right" crap. Too much cronyism, too many back room deals, too greedy about the Benjamins to really concern themselves with right and wrong.

[Nevada_Ballin]

A number that is hgiher then it should be.

So what is it? In your mind, what is that number?


.

[MonoxideChild]

He can't give you a number. It doesn't exist. That's too contrived a statistic to tell accurately. You guys are failing to see that neither Democrats or Republicans are really left or right. They're both centerst parties, Republicans slightly right of the Dems. In reality it shouldn't be looked at as right/ left. There is a north south part of the equation as well. Anyone that debates left/right politics are just looking to match the reactionism they see on tv or read in their "news"-papers.

[sideoutshu]

So you are implying that it is only Republicans who are at the heart and soul of what America has been and should be?

Yet, i sit here with my "liberal-minded" self and look back on the things I've done and i am doing now and i say to myself.... "sideout has no idea what he's talking about". I started out as a blue-collar guy. Worked my asz off at every job i've ever had. I've lived on the poorest of poor side of the tracks and the good side. I've single-parented twins - one a special needs child - AND paid child support while having legal custody of my kids (don't ask how that worked, i'm STILL trying to get those thousands of dollars back). But i continued to fight the good fight. I didn't dump myself into government help and cry "oh woe is me, the USA needs to help me"

I didn't need any government-lobbied incentive to do better. All i needed was the "want to" and the drive to do so..... and i did so. I'm not the exception to the liberal-minded rule. I'm actully a good example of a true liberal-minded person. Someone who is liberal-minded believes in total free-thinking without being tied to specific group and their way of believing how life should be. they do what they need to do to live a good life. They don't rely on others. That includes politics and religion.

Those people who belong to political parties or religious groups have given up on their own ability to think freely. It's much easier to live inside the boxed ideologies of their groups than it is to step out of that pre-made container of another's beliefs and constuct their own set if ideologies. It would be too scary. Someone might call you a "marxist" or a "communist" or a "socialist" or a "martian" if you aren't on board with the mainstream thought - even if your own ideologies have nothing to do with being a "marxist" or a "communist" or a "socialist" or a "martian".

To think freely is the greatest gift this country has ever given anyone. Too bad so many people are caught up in the whole "left/right" crap. Too much cronyism, too many back room deals, too greedy about the Benjamins to really concern themselves with right and wrong.

You keep applying what was said about one point to other issues and end up making no sense.

My post was in response to someone who was essentially claiming that the endless taking from the rich and giving to the poor would not have any adverse consequences. It was about the benefits of capitalism and what effect a reduction in incentive has on innovation. It had nothing to do with "lazy" or "not lazy", that is a totally different issue.

But since you bring up your having the "true liberal mindset", I will say that people like you are part of the other side of the party. The liberal elite, who uses and manipulates the other half of the party to get what you want.

[sideoutshu]

So what is it? In your mind, what is that number?


.

Why do you keep harping on this? You are just sitting back and waiting to attack any number I throw out.....no thanks.

[MonoxideChild]

Nevada, I'd be interested in hearing your other "true" liberal ideas. I'm not attacking you, just curious. I think there are a lot of people out there that assume that their thinking is more in line with something it isn't. Just like the so called "conservatives" on here that think they're anti-socialist but at the same time, they're really just Socialism-lite.

[JoeJGibbs]

Why do you keep harping on this? You are just sitting back and waiting to attack any number I throw out.....no thanks.

I think he just wants to see if you have a number.

[sanantonio]

I think he just wants to see if you have a number.

The answer would be no because you can't really pull them from a bodily orifice.

[Gtrght77]

I agree there is little difference between the parties, they both are going to the same place. One is just trying to get there faster.

[RicoVacilon]

Those people who belong to political parties or religious groups have given up on their own ability to think freely.

Based on the rest of your comments, when you stop and think about it I don't think you would agree with your own statement. It is based on stereotyping and pigeon-holing a wildly diverse group of people. From everything else you wrote, I don't think you're one to do that. :D

[Nevada_Ballin]

He can't give you a number. It doesn't exist. That's too contrived a statistic to tell accurately. You guys are failing to see that neither Democrats or Republicans are really left or right. They're both centerst parties, Republicans slightly right of the Dems. In reality it shouldn't be looked at as right/ left. There is a north south part of the equation as well. Anyone that debates left/right politics are just looking to match the reactionism they see on tv or read in their "news"-papers.

But i want to know what he thinks that number is...

[Nevada_Ballin]

Based on the rest of your comments, when you stop and think about it I don't think you would agree with your own statement. It is based on stereotyping and pigeon-holing a wildly diverse group of people. From everything else you wrote, I don't think you're one to do that. :D

It's not really stereotyping or pigeon-holing. It's about environments people are raised in more than anything. Not many try to go too far out of those boxes and extend their thoughts past that. People like their comfort zones and that's fine. The problems occur when that comfort zone becomes "my zone is the right zone".

Even in my own little comfort zone, there's a lot more room for expansion :)

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Nevada, I'd be interested in hearing your other "true" liberal ideas. I'm not attacking you, just curious. I think there are a lot of people out there that assume that their thinking is more in line with something it isn't. Just like the so called "conservatives" on here that think they're anti-socialist but at the same time, they're really just Socialism-lite.

It really comes down to 2 words, free thinking.... when a person can sit in thought, analyze situations and then decide on his own volition where he stands without prejudice. That is a liberal mind.

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

You keep applying what was said about one point to other issues and end up making no sense.

My post was in response to someone who was essentially claiming that the endless taking from the rich and giving to the poor would not have any adverse consequences. It was about the benefits of capitalism and what effect a reduction in incentive has on innovation. It had nothing to do with "lazy" or "not lazy", that is a totally different issue.

But since you bring up your having the "true liberal mindset", I will say that people like you are part of the other side of the party. The liberal elite, who uses and manipulates the other half of the party to get what you want.

And how many of us "liberal elite" (another labeled box) are unemployed and/or would rather live off the government? .... lol

And i keep asking for that number because you are the one who said a high percentage, I'm just drilling down a bit here to see what you think that number is. I know you have some number in your head, may as well share it with us.

[RicoVacilon]

It's not really stereotyping or pigeon-holing. It's about environments people are raised in more than anything. Not many try to go too far out of those boxes and extend their thoughts past that. People like their comfort zones and that's fine. The problems occur when that comfort zone becomes "my zone is the right zone".

Even in my own little comfort zone, there's a lot more room for expansion :)

.

If you're really interested, and I don't blame you if you're not, there's some good stuff out there on religion being a positive reforming aspect of society. Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses but was only basing that on his limited experience with German Protestantism and the Anglican Church in London. I can see why he made that statement! But there's more out there than the oppresive/repressive side of religion.

[RicoVacilon]

Nevada, I'd be interested in hearing your other "true" liberal ideas. I'm not attacking you, just curious. I think there are a lot of people out there that assume that their thinking is more in line with something it isn't. Just like the so called "conservatives" on here that think they're anti-socialist but at the same time, they're really just Socialism-lite.

This is called "false consciousness" and is really the most debilitating part of the status quo right now. It's what causes people to THINK they're being reformist/revolutionary when in the end they are merely supporting the status quo.

[sideoutshu]

And how many of us "liberal elite" (another labeled box) are unemployed and/or would rather live off the government? .... lol

And i keep asking for that number because you are the one who said a high percentage, I'm just drilling down a bit here to see what you think that number is. I know you have some number in your head, may as well share it with us.

Honestly, I don't even remember what statement the percentage would be refering to anymore.

[Nevada_Ballin]

If you're really interested, and I don't blame you if you're not, there's some good stuff out there on religion being a positive reforming aspect of society. Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses but was only basing that on his limited experience with German Protestantism and the Anglican Church in London. I can see why he made that statement! But there's more out there than the oppresive/repressive side of religion.

Yea, I'm fairly educated on religion and different religions - been through a couple myself. And I don't disagree that on lower levels, the purpose is to try to enrich people's lives. On the higher levels though, it is still a form of politics - they play the game just as well as any politician in DC, many times they play with them

[Nevada_Ballin]

Honestly, I don't even remember what statement the percentage would be refering to anymore.

Let's go with the last one you brought up - the "high precent of unemployed democrats who would rather shoot out a baby and live off the government" .... what percent of the unemployed democrats do you think that is?

Would it be too much to ask you how many unemployed democrts there are in the first place? Just to put whatever % is in your head into perspective of course.


.

[sideoutshu]

Let's go with the last one you brought up - the "high precent of unemployed democrats who would rather shoot out a baby and live off the government" .... what percent of the unemployed democrats do you think that is?

Would it be too much to ask you how many unemployed democrts there are in the first place? Just to put whatever % is in your head into perspective of course.


.

Thanks, but I'm not looking to do a research paper to win the internet argument. I would respond to the % thing, but that isn't my direct quote and I am not interested enough to go look it up.