The Great Sort Continues

originally posted by: ketsuko
Well ... it used to before their governors shut everything down for COVID and let people loot at will.

I suspect this list won't change much when it comes out again next year.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It takes a while for the types of trends we're talking about to really take effect. The Great Migration was a years long thing, not one year or two.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: gb540

Tiffany Wooten, a 43-year-old stay-at-home mom whose family recently relocated from conservative Indiana to liberal Austin. "We were looking at blue cities because we wanted to be with our own people."

If she really wanted to be with her own, why didn’t she move to Chicago?

Actions speak, when you embrace an ideology while fleeing the local utopia.

What she really wants and won't say is that they are wanting a liberal microcosm in a red macrocosm. They want to live with people who think, act and believe the way they do, but they don't want to live with so many that they actually have to abide by those beliefs in a meaningful way. If they did, they would do as you say and move to Chicago, New York, or any of the West Coast cities.

The problem is that she's just not that aware of why they're only going so far as Austin. She'd tell you it was because the cost of living without connecting cost of living to living the outcome of one's own liberal beliefs.

I logged in.. to quote this , for truth.

I'd flag that post as well as star it if I could.



Respectfully,
~meathead

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It's a bit of the other way around, states like New York, California and Massachusetts pay more in taxes than they receive.

States don't pay taxes, they receive tax money. It would be more accurate to say the the taxpayers of states like, NY, CA, and MA pay more in federal taxes than those states receive from the federal government.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

One thing to remember is that those blue cities that have high poverty and homeless oh and violence do pay more into the gubment then they take...well most do.

Thus the reason for high poverty conditions in "blue States" .

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Allaroundyou

One thing to remember is that those blue cities that have high poverty and homeless oh and violence do pay more into the gubment then they take...well most do.

Thus the reason for high poverty conditions in "blue States" .

It's like some bizarre self-flagellation to include the things that undermine your own point in your point. He's so good at it I can't even conjure up a sarcastic hypothetical to mock it. It's masterful.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Allaroundyou

One thing to remember is that those blue cities that have high poverty and homeless oh and violence do pay more into the gubment then they take...well most do.

Thus the reason for high poverty conditions in "blue States" .

It's like some bizarre self-flagellation to include the things that undermine your own point in your point. He's so good at it I can't even conjure up a sarcastic hypothetical to mock it. It's masterful.

"One should start their brain before they put their fingers in drive on the open keyboard."
Some never learn that .

a reply to: ketsuko

You know, living in Texas as I do, with it's huge military bases and airfields, I'd had exactly the same thought about Federal spending......but......I can't really prove the compilation of the statistics include those amounts. When I looked at the link and the numbers, I couldn't find any criteria about what was included in those numbers. But it would seem to me that your point is quite possibly a valid one. Thanks

a reply to: TonyS

I can't prove it either, but given how much the left constantly squawks and whines about how much of our overall federal budget is earmarked for military spending, how much we spend on bombs and other ordinance, then you think about how much of that has to be used in training and would then go to those military installations among all the other costs inherent in keeping them running ...

If you were desperate to prove a point about takers v. makers, you'd roll that money in to help make it as it is technically federal tax money going to those states.

It's like lumping in suicide by gun stats as part of your death toll when you want to scare someone over "gun violence". Yes, technically they died by firearm, but they chose to do themselves in so it's playing some hocus pocus with the stats to make them more advantageous to your argument.

a reply to: Hypntick

Keep the people in their own little party camps and against each other rather than against the massive overreach of the federal government, regardless of who is in power.

Very true and it plays well with the media narrative of "all politics, all the time", or perhaps better phrased as the narrative of "all news is politics and all politics is news". Either way its a manufactured construct. And it's manufactured not only in terms of the drumbeat of hyper partisanship, but it's manufactured in the sense that via the media the publc is programmed to such an extent that the majority of people no longer can know if their thoughts are their own or are just the result of programming. There are two sets of programming, but nonetheless, walk into a room full of people, listen to the conversations and you realize they are all thinking exactly the same thing on practically every topic. I find conversing with these peope to be entirely pointless.......you can't get passed the programming. Its really kinda sad and isolating for those of us who dont partake in the programming.

a reply to: ketsuko

True and good point but it our formula is correct......that would mean that California is paying in an amount in EXCESS of the cost of all the naval bases and air bases in California.......and if true that points to the awesome wealth generation of California, which, considering the Tech Companies and the Movie/Entertainment industry, may well be the case.

a reply to: TonyS

I live in Oregonistan.

Portland, Salem, Eugene are blue cities. The rest of the state is fairly moderate or even red.

If we could just get rid of our current leadership, things might be better.

I think democrats are doing that for us though. They're defunding police, crime is rising so even leftists are leaving these cities.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: ketsuko

True and good point but it our formula is correct......that would mean that California is paying in an amount in EXCESS of the cost of all the naval bases and air bases in California.......and if true that points to the awesome wealth generation of California, which, considering the Tech Companies and the Movie/Entertainment industry, may well be the case.

California is/was an awesome place full of wealth. It takes a long time for that to erode and be destroyed. I suspect that if you adjusted for inflation the wealth generation from Cali of today would not be what it was. It might be close, but I'd suspect it's losing ground as the decay sets in.

These are generational trends, not overnight.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It takes a while for the types of trends we're talking about to really take effect. The Great Migration was a years long thing, not one year or two.

I suspect it wont change much for the next decade.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
States don't pay taxes, they receive tax money. It would be more accurate to say the the taxpayers of states like, NY, CA, and MA pay more in federal taxes than those states receive from the federal government.

That's what I was implying, the report makes that clear.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Thus the reason for high poverty conditions in "blue States" .

Try again:

[1]Mississippi: 20.3% of population lives below the poverty line
[2]Louisiana: 19.2% of population lives below the poverty line
[3]New Mexico: 19.1% of population lives below the poverty line
[4]West Virginia: 17.6% of population lives below the poverty line
[5]Kentucky: 17.3% of population lives below the poverty line
[6]Arkansas: 17.0% of population lives below the poverty line
[7]Alabama: 16.7% of population lives below the poverty line
[8]Oklahoma: 15.7% of population lives below the poverty line
[9]Tennessee: 15.2% of population lives below the poverty line
[10]South Carolina: 15.2% of population lives below the poverty line

One Blue, nine Red.

originally posted by: TonyS
You know, living in Texas as I do, with it's huge military bases and airfields, I'd had exactly the same thought about Federal spending......but......I can't really prove the compilation of the statistics include those amounts. When I looked at the link and the numbers, I couldn't find any criteria about what was included in those numbers. But it would seem to me that your point is quite possibly a valid one. Thanks

That isn't what the report shows, military bases and other installations aren't included. It's strictly money paid by taxpayers and businesses to the Treasury and what those same taxpayers and businesses get back. The end.

The 'military spending' is a canard that people use to assuage themselves when they find out they live in a mooch state.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

During the Obama administration, the poverty line was changed to be a percentage below the national average household income rather than a hard number.

So if the national average is roughly $50,000, then it's a percentage below that.

How hard or not it is to live at that level depends heavily on the standard of living, cost of living in those states. $50,000 goes a *lot* further in some than others, and subsequently, the poverty line amount will also. So how much poverty it actually is from place to place varies. Arguably, the national average household income *is* poverty in states like New York and California all on its own.

originally posted by: ketsuko
California is/was an awesome place full of wealth. It takes a long time for that to erode and be destroyed. I suspect that if you adjusted for inflation the wealth generation from Cali of today would not be what it was. It might be close, but I'd suspect it's losing ground as the decay sets in.

These are generational trends, not overnight.

California's GDP has outperformed the United States' GDP for the past decade.

originally posted by: ketsuko
During the Obama administration, the poverty line was changed to be a percentage below the national average household income rather than a hard number.

So if the national average is roughly $50,000, then it's a percentage below that.

How hard or not it is to live at that level depends heavily on the standard of living, cost of living in those states. $50,000 goes a *lot* further in some than others, and subsequently, the poverty line amount will also. So how much poverty it actually is from place to place varies. Arguably, the national average household income *is* poverty in states like New York and California all on its own.

It doesn't matter how you slice and dice it, the broke asses live in those states.

And it's $26,500, not $50,000. You really need to be a potato to make that type of wage, you can accident yourself to a better job.