If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Q. Are the 10 poorest states really Republican states? A. OK, fine... But it's the Democrat's fault they're poor   (forbes.com) divider line 280
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

8196 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2012 at 4:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-09 04:26:20 PM
They've been blaming poverty on Democrats for years, nothing new here.
 
2012-06-09 04:39:17 PM
God I went back and re-read closely and it's worse than I thought.

Apparently the South gets a pass, because 50 years ago they were Democratic, plus hey, it was hard to recover from losing Slavery.

Then, right after saying 50 years wasn't long enough to draw a pattern, they point out how Democratically controlled states were effected by the economic issues in the last few years.

Also, it's apparently unfair to correlate data, if the correlation looks bad politically.

Cities have more poor people. Well no shiat, they also have more people in general.
 
2012-06-09 04:47:01 PM
Don't worry, red states. We'll keep working hard to pull you up by our bootstraps so you don't have to, you slackass yokels.
 
2012-06-09 04:55:59 PM
It's old and another farker linked to it a few days ago, but it's always worth mentioning for this discussion. You really have to hustle to stay that poor and ignorant. You might as well take credit for all your anti-work and stop blaming the libs.

/Yes, they did one with black people the following week because, after all, Both Sides Are Bad
 
2012-06-09 04:59:05 PM
It's the Democrats' fault they don't purge these right-wing elements from their party.
 
2012-06-09 04:59:24 PM
A common analytical error is the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy-"after this, therefore because of this." For example, chronic federal deficits became chronic in the 1960s. What changed in America at that time? Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union in 1959 and 1960, respectively; therefore, the erroneous assertion to follow is that we need only expel those two states from the Union to solve our deficit spending problem. Absurd, right? Similarly, we can't facilely assume that the lower per capita incomes in the 10 poorest states were caused by Republican policies.

The author is a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like.
 
2012-06-09 04:59:39 PM
Grove City College? Seriously.

If it weren't for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would be Alabama.
 
2012-06-09 05:01:57 PM
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN
 
2012-06-09 05:02:44 PM
Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina.

Making the case that these places are really Democratic hotbeds?

Okay, I'll admit. it. Did not see that coming.
 
2012-06-09 05:03:08 PM
Looking at the list of the 10 poorest states, all except Montana are east of the Mississippi River. That means they are older states. Those nine also happen to be concentrated in the South. This is significant: They were all slaveholding states. They focused on producing commodities, whereas the northern states produced more value-added goods, more manufactured goods, more capital-intensive goods. Combined with national policies that conferred economic advantages on the relatively industrialized, higher capitalized North-policies that created some of the friction that led to the Civil War-the South's economic development lagged.

As is common in societies based on producing raw commodities, the Old South had an elite that owned the land and employed a poorly educated workforce to plant, tend, and harvest the crops. Historically, then, education was of less importance, and therefore emphasized less, in the South than in the North-a trend that contributed ongoing economic advantages to the North.


He makes a great argument for reparations to African Americans for slavery.
 
2012-06-09 05:03:14 PM
Seriously? The abolish of slavery is the problem? Not the 150 years of policy since then? Gotcha.
 
2012-06-09 05:03:54 PM
PRAY THE POOR AWAY
 
2012-06-09 05:04:16 PM
The Democratic case is illusory and circumstantial; the Republican case is solid and substantial. Clearly, that sums it up nicely.

Personally, I would've never thought that Montana was considered 'impoverished.' I can understand that idea that there's not many people there, and it's revenues are small for that reason. And while I can see that "per capita" may be low, I also thought that the cost of living there was close to next to nothing.

Then again, I know very little about Montana aside from the little side trip we took there when I went to Yellowstone a few years back.
 
2012-06-09 05:05:54 PM
It's the Democrats' fault that they don't head-slap the TeaPublicans every time they bring up Supply Side Jesus and his voodoo economics.
 
2012-06-09 05:06:03 PM

The Green Manalishi: The author is a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like.


Ah, the Donnie Darko condition.
 
2012-06-09 05:06:14 PM
www.amsterdamtrader.com

We get it.. we get it. The poor people in these states are concentrated in the African-American, Hispanic, and Native American communities and it's their own fault for voting Republican.

/wait, what?
 
2012-06-09 05:11:15 PM

The Green Manalishi: The author is a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like.


"My interests are varied-graduate work in law at the University of Michigan, literature at Oxford, moral education at Harvard, and economics under the tutelage of Hans F. Sennholz, who earned his doctorate under Ludwig von Mises. My libertarian economics is fused with traditional American values. My most recent book is "Famous But Nameless: Lessons and Inspiration from the Bible's Anonymous Characters (2011)."

Eeyup.
 
2012-06-09 05:11:29 PM
I especially liked his blog post about the Curley Effect. He takes this list of cities: "Perhaps you have seen the chain e-mail listing the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark" and decides that the common reason for their poverty is Democratic mayors hating Job Creators and subsequent white flight.

o_O

The various reasons for the decline of those cities is so huge and varied that it just boggles the mind that he could even paper over them with this simplistic thesis. Oh... wait... never mind.
 
2012-06-09 05:12:40 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: My most recent book is "Famous But Nameless: Lessons and Inspiration from the Bible's Anonymous Characters.


That's gonna be a page-turner.
 
2012-06-09 05:13:47 PM
This is what Wisconsin will be saying in a few years once the Koch Brothers and Scott Walker have gotten done looting and pillaging their state.
 
2012-06-09 05:18:00 PM
The article needs a bit more honesty. I would go one but I predict anything that is not covered above will be covered below.
 
2012-06-09 05:18:27 PM
Wow. It's North's fault for not letting the South keep their slaves, and promoting education.

The article actually says that.
 
2012-06-09 05:19:31 PM
The 10 poorest states are all basically in the South. Republican and Democrat don't mean shiat to these people. They were Democrats for over a hundred years because southern Democrats supported slavery and northern Democrats tolerated it for votes. They are Republicans now because Barry Goldwater sold his soul to satan and decided to pay attention to them to win elections. What these people stand for and want now and historically isn't generally close to the national platform and what the general national electorate feels regardless. If Obama dropped his own Southern Strategy, they'd swing Democrat again.
 
2012-06-09 05:21:28 PM

snowshovel: Personally, I would've never thought that Montana was considered 'impoverished.' I can understand that idea that there's not many people there, and it's revenues are small for that reason. And while I can see that "per capita" may be low, I also thought that the cost of living there was close to next to nothing.


You should come with me on a trip home to Ft. Peck. A third world shiat hole right in our back yard.

You simply cannot imagine.
 
2012-06-09 05:22:22 PM
Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.
 
2012-06-09 05:26:20 PM
I have to say - it is quite amusing watching someone try to convince himself that Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina are not overwhelmingly Republican. Good stuff.
 
2012-06-09 05:26:21 PM

kukukupo: Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.


You wouldn't exactly be "poor" with 100k in California, but I take your point. You can get by fairly well with 45k a year.

/speaking as a single, childless bachelor with no real health issues, or long commutes.
 
2012-06-09 05:26:52 PM

kukukupo: Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.


This is true but I am fairly certain they are taking into account cost of living when they do this.

Isn't about time someone put up the chart showing the amount republican states take in federal money vs the amount democrat states do?
 
2012-06-09 05:26:57 PM
But you'd certainly be rich in the midwest pulling down 100k, that's for sure.
 
2012-06-09 05:28:46 PM

kukukupo: Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.


True, but if you don't have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of like the South you're poor everywhere.

I don't by the slavery angle for a second. The current crop (no pun intended) of poor Southern Republicans look like they're incapable of managing a goldfish to not die, let along a slave to grow cotton.
 
2012-06-09 05:29:57 PM

kukukupo: Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.


no
 
2012-06-09 05:30:15 PM
You know in a strange way a kind of admire the GPO. They have constantly managed to get millions of poor working class people to vote against there better interests time after time after time. That can't be as easy as it looks..... I hope.
 
2012-06-09 05:31:50 PM
How is it that this kind of Farking Shyt sees the light of day. The school where this guy teaches ranks something like 149 among private colleges, and this guy is using what is euphemistically referred to as his brain to come up with this claptrap Blows my Mind. And then Forbes reprints this Shyt.

IT must be that there is tons of cash that would otherwise been soaked up by traditional Income Taxes, that is now floating out there for every venal crackpot to grasp for simply writing shyt like this. I smell Richard Melon Scaife and his ilk(KockBros,CoorsBros,etc) behind such a shytty exercise of the so called mind.
 
2012-06-09 05:32:07 PM

kukukupo: Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.


That's a self defeating argument. You can be rich in the Midwest with less money BECAUSE the area is so poor.
 
2012-06-09 05:32:21 PM
Did... did he just blame modern Democrats for slavery and 150 years of systemic poverty in minority communities?
 
2012-06-09 05:33:08 PM

balloot: I have to say - it is quite amusing watching someone try to convince himself that Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina are not overwhelmingly Republican. Good stuff.


It's because of Alaska and Hawaii and the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy and Democrats and furthermore.
 
2012-06-09 05:34:25 PM

LasersHurt: God I went back and re-read closely and it's worse than I thought.

Apparently the South gets a pass, because 50 years ago they were Democratic, plus hey, it was hard to recover from losing Slavery.

Then, right after saying 50 years wasn't long enough to draw a pattern, they point out how Democratically controlled states were effected by the economic issues in the last few years.

Also, it's apparently unfair to correlate data, if the correlation looks bad politically.

Cities have more poor people. Well no shiat, they also have more people in general.


According to these people, it's harder to recover from LOSING slavery than it is to recover from actually BEING a slave (or descended from one).

/makes sense to me!
//party of personal responsibility!
 
2012-06-09 05:35:27 PM

balloot: I have to say - it is quite amusing watching someone try to convince himself that Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina are not overwhelmingly Republican. Good stuff.


Conversely, Massachusetts is a redneck, truck drivin', country music listenin' hoedown since electing Mitt Romney and Scott Brown.
 
2012-06-09 05:36:27 PM
My most recent book is "Famous But Nameless: Lessons and Inspiration from the Bible's Anonymous Characters (2011).

Will this clear up the question about Cain's wife? Because she just sort of comes out of nowhere.
 
2012-06-09 05:37:47 PM

rohar: snowshovel: Personally, I would've never thought that Montana was considered 'impoverished.' I can understand that idea that there's not many people there, and it's revenues are small for that reason. And while I can see that "per capita" may be low, I also thought that the cost of living there was close to next to nothing.

You should come with me on a trip home to Ft. Peck. A third world shiat hole right in our back yard.

You simply cannot imagine.


It's been over 40 years since I lived in Montana, but when I did the people living in the duplex across the street from us had a fire pit in their living room they cooked over. No shiat.
 
2012-06-09 05:38:31 PM
It's not really so much a republican or democrat issue. There have to be greater dynamics at play.

What I find interesting is this California income per capita data. The bottom county in the state is Los Angles!

taxfoundation.org
The counties that voted in orange voted no on a cigarette tax of 1 dollar. California, the supposed libbiest libs whoever libbed state. LA, the epitome of welfare-state and big government voted NO on it.
 
2012-06-09 05:40:00 PM
Didn't you know? Everything wrong is the fault of liberals. They're purposely trying to destroy Jesus Christ/America because they hate freedom.

And if a Republican gets caught doing something so stupid/evil/corrupt that they actually have to apologize, it's still the liberals' fault, because a Republican who did something wrong was just acting like a liberal.
 
2012-06-09 05:44:31 PM
So personal responsibility doesn't apply here?
 
2012-06-09 05:44:50 PM

snowshovel: The Democratic case is illusory and circumstantial; the Republican case is solid and substantial. Clearly, that sums it up nicely.

Personally, I would've never thought that Montana was considered 'impoverished.' I can understand that idea that there's not many people there, and it's revenues are small for that reason. And while I can see that "per capita" may be low, I also thought that the cost of living there was close to next to nothing.

Then again, I know very little about Montana aside from the little side trip we took there when I went to Yellowstone a few years back.


Pull the Indian Reservations out of the picture and the outlook would drastically change. Those little bastions of poverty really skew things.
 
2012-06-09 05:47:46 PM
What he forgot to mention is that everyone in these ten states has the last name of Johnson.
 
2012-06-09 05:49:33 PM

Guidette Frankentits:
The counties that voted in orange voted no on a cigarette tax of 1 dollar. California, the supposed libbiest libs whoever libbed state. LA, the epitome of welfare-state and big government voted NO on it.


California isn't as liberal as the popular media would have you think. Huge swaths of the farmland along with Orange County, the Inland Empire and San Diego are some of the reddest districts in America. We're the place who gave you Darrell Issa R(etarded). The northern half of California (excluding Humboldt/Emerald Triangle) is redder than the deep south.

The liberal reputation comes mostly from the Cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco where the population density is so high that it gives the illusion that they're the only parts of the state that matter.
 
2012-06-09 05:51:37 PM

Guidette Frankentits: The counties that voted in orange voted no on a cigarette tax of 1 dollar. California, the supposed libbiest libs whoever libbed state. LA, the epitome of welfare-state and big government voted NO on it.


You might find this interesting.
 
2012-06-09 05:54:46 PM

red5ish: My most recent book is "Famous But Nameless: Lessons and Inspiration from the Bible's Anonymous Characters (2011).

Will this clear up the question about Cain's wife? Because she just sort of comes out of nowhere.


Cain's wife was named Lucy. Yeah, that Lucy.
 
2012-06-09 05:57:35 PM

BMulligan: rohar: snowshovel: Personally, I would've never thought that Montana was considered 'impoverished.' I can understand that idea that there's not many people there, and it's revenues are small for that reason. And while I can see that "per capita" may be low, I also thought that the cost of living there was close to next to nothing.

You should come with me on a trip home to Ft. Peck. A third world shiat hole right in our back yard.

You simply cannot imagine.

It's been over 40 years since I lived in Montana, but when I did the people living in the duplex across the street from us had a fire pit in their living room they cooked over. No shiat.


Not surprising. Both my parents were in their teens before they had running water. Even then it was only in the kitchen. They had left home before their parents had toilets. Cooking over a fire pit was quite common.

I've never had a better meal that what my grandmother could do over the hearth. And I'm pretty sure I'm not just saying that because she was my Beste. The care taken in cooking was amazing.
 
2012-06-09 05:58:32 PM
I can't wait until Republicans aren't too busy pointing fingers (and flipping middle one) to help fix the problems.

haha... like that is going to happen.
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report