Back to reality.......... 5 states with the most people in poverty Kentucky. Georgia. ... Arkansas. ... Louisiana. ... New Mexico. ... Mississippi. Republican reliance on supply-side socialism goes hand-in-hand with poverty.
You're again ignoring that the total numbers in the states referenced are a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare population of California. And again, what's the point of continuing to bring this failed angle up? It's only a contributing factor to California's voting disfunction.
That's a correct representation of what income is required based on location. There's nothing laughable about poverty.
Poverty rates are greater in the red states. Red states, like in third-world countries, tend to turn their backs on the poor by providing less generous welfare benefits than California....consistent with their anti-Christian mindset. California sends the federal government more in taxes that are then redistributed to the deadbeat red states. Geez....take our money and then gives us the finger. Ingrates.
And yet the median income of Trump voters was higher than that of Hillary or Bernie supporters. Why didn't these poor people vote to make their state blue?
No, but there's certainly a lot that's laughable about that list. Do you really think Mississippi is in the upper half of better off states in regards to poverty???
Fine work, sir. Just have to shake your head and laugh at the republican losers in these backward, embarrassing red states...
Thanks. This is the scam the supply-side socialists known as Republicans pull. Governmental entities known as corporations undercapitalize their employees to the point that they qualify for welfare benefits. In other words, taxpayers are socializing business costs. Then the undercapitialized employees use their welfare benefits to buy the goods and services of businesses. So in reality, the biggest benefactors of welfare are businesses.
I don't believe I mentioned race, nor ever have. Why did you assume race? I'm simply analyzing what you're saying. There is no real reason to have to worry about that. You can like the suburbs all you want, there's no problem with that. There is a problem when your demands for your rights and liberties conflict with anther persons'. You have a car, you live in a relatively secure neighborhood and if you have a van I can assume you probably have a decent job. Pays enough of the bills that you can afford you time to talk online, but beyond that not too much. Compared to someone who lives in the "city" and has a worse life than yours, we ought to help them out. So when the fear of "crime" and "drugs" overtakes your rational self, there's a problem.
I have it pretty good. It's due to hard work and the grace of God. I didn't step on anyone to have a good life, I don't demand that someone else give to me, nor do I want people making demands that I give to them. I help who I want to and there are those who need help but refuse it. My hands are clean in that matter. All I ask is to be left alone to enjoy my life.
Yes. The cost of living is much lower in MS. The median and average incomes might be very low in MS relative to other states like CA but there is a lower percentage in poverty.
We know that those who lives in bubbles who have access to more resources than other is more likely to share resources within that bubble. They do not go outside it. This is the effect of generational wealth. By maintaining this bubble, it deprives other communities of resources that they too need in order to survive. It is not efficient and it creates problems in the long run. A good example of this is how public schools are funded. They're funded through in part by property taxes. Rich neighborhoods can pay more to get better schools which in turn attracts more capital from an influx of new people. Poorer communities suffer as a result. So when you do these things, you deprive another group of access to resources to which they need. Is that morally acceptably?
The Clinton family passing their wealth to their daughter isn't taking anything from anyone. You (plural) lefties believe that there is a stagnant supply of wealth which just gets eaten up by a few, leaving none for the rest.
Yes it is. They give it to their daughter vs giving it to other communities, that's the same affect as taking money from them. Also what do you mean by leftie? I will have you know I am a Distributist on economic issues and if you think you know what that means, you'd know that's not a traditional left wing belief if it even is one.
Being a "distributist" is much like being a "communist". It's a firm leftie belief. I'm a constitutionalist. Read Article 1, Section 8...it clearly lays out the 18 things that the government is allowed to spend our money on. Nowhere does it mention taking the property of one citizen and giving it another. In fact, there is only one monetary item that a citizen is constitutionally receive from the state...legal representation.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That's hilarious. Now for a basic explaining of what it is. It's free market capitalism but up to a point. Can't produce more than a certain amount. It's based on Catholic teachings from the 18th century. It's not communist. That means very little to me. "Promote the general welfare"... Also kinda implying that you can only support government run projects then. But again, regressive conservatism shines its head. You don't support spending money on another person because that other person is going to be in the same power bracket as you, weakening your overall power.
Yea. That's it. I want to keep people "out of my bracket". Look at the meaning of "welfare" of that day. You can't limit capitalisms growth. That's communism.
Yup, rational self interest guides us all. Honey, I don't care because not even you use that concept. Nobody alive does. I have no idea what this even means. What do you even mean by capitalism are you talking about managed or free market or what here? What does communism even mean because it frankly sounds like you don't understand what you're even saying.
Wait a minute...did you not say "you don't understand what you're saying"? Excuse me, but it is you who do not understand what I'm saying.
You said that limiting capitalisms' growth is communism. That's not true for several reasons. Among them there are multiple types of capitalism. Capitalism in one country is not the same as another, but they're still capitalist. As for what that has to do with communism, I have no idea. Limiting the free market is a form of a command economy, that doesn't mean communist. It just means limiting the free market. Japan does this through protectionist policies. They're not communists- they're capitalists, just a different version of it.
