California the poorest state in the union according to latest statistics from the Census bureau.

  • 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for kittennose
#51 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

Y'all are being bated. He quoted all three of you to contradict four words said by one of you that really didn't have much to do with the topic at hand. Silly to take the trumpocrat seriously.

Avatar image for zaryia
#52 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: California is the biggest shithole and the poorest state in the union and thats a fact. Its its also true liberals are factually uglier then conservatives.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/study-finds-that-conservatives-are-generally-more-good-looking/

6 of the 10 best ran states in the US are also red, Including the top 3.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/926586001

Red Herring.

This data in no way refutes the data I listed which completely refuted your claim. Red States on average are FAR more likely to be "shitholes" as you put it. This is a fact. Much higher poverty, much worse education, much lower gdp, much worse health, more obesity, Your original statement was incorrect,

Like most blue states

P.S. That "attractive" study isn't US State data. It's Eu/Au/US country wide. It doesn't tell me red vs blue states attractiveness levels. The study also only looks at the candidates and politicians, not the people. It's also completely off-topic.

Avatar image for sonicare
#53 Posted by sonicare (56191 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

California is the wealthiest state in the union. Your title is idiotic. You must be a conservative.

That wealth is also concentrated in a small percent of the population of that state. So it's possible for a state to have the most "wealth" but also the highest amount of per capita poor people or welfare recipients. Also, while it may be the "wealthiest state", it also is the largest population wise.

Avatar image for loganx77
#54 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: lol what??? Its education system is garbage and no they are not better on average. I just showed you the top 10 best run states and 6 out of 10 were red states. Also read the link CA is the biggest moocher state in the nation. Not to mention most blue states have the largest wealth gaps in the nation. Its liberal elites leading poor dumb democrats.

Avatar image for zaryia
#55 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

no they are not better on average.

Then you will have to refute the links I provided earlier.

On average, Blue states have higher GDP (By a lot), lower poverty, less underprivileged children, a better economy, better health, far less federal aid dependence(because they have less poor people), and better education.

In no way was your claim true by any standard of measure,

Like most blue states California is mostly a shithole.

I won't spam my post with links of citation again, they are on page 1.

Avatar image for loganx77
#56 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: And none of your links factor in cost of living which would put but blue states in dead last. Your link is outdated simple as that.

Avatar image for zaryia
#57 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: And none of your links factor in cost of living which would put but blue states in dead last. Your link is outdated simple as that.

Nah. From my links,

"Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states (i.e. housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau."

I'm so glad to be living in a High educated, High Health, High income, Low Poverty blue state - which also happens to have a nice variety of babes. More likely in blue!

Avatar image for loganx77
#58 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@loganx77: No it doesnt. Your forbes link has California as one of the richest which is false.

Your area has lots of babes? Are they fat purple haird femenist that hate men?

Avatar image for n64dd
#59 Edited by N64DD (10459 posts) -

@zaryia said:
@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: And none of your links factor in cost of living which would put but blue states in dead last. Your link is outdated simple as that.

Nah. From my links,

"Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states (i.e. housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau."

I'm so glad to be living in a High educated, High Health, High income, Low Poverty blue state - which also happens to have a nice variety of babes. More likely in blue!

Pics or it didn't happen.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#60 Edited by LJS9502_basic (164713 posts) -

States receiving most welfare

Kentucky...also one of the poorest. Mississippi...New Mexico....Alabama...same. California is way down at 46 out of 50 states so the dude saying California is flat out wrong or lying.

Avatar image for zaryia
#61 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

Your area has lots of babes? Are they fat purple haird femenist that hate men?

No - Red states have higher obesity. I'm also glad you couldn't counter my other claims.

Avatar image for loganx77
#62 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: I did counter your other claims. At no point did they say they accounted for cost of living. Thats why forbes in your link had California as one if the richest states.

And it doesnt matter when liberals are proven to be more unnatractive.

Avatar image for loganx77
#63 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: California has more people on wellfare then any state. Read the link!

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#64 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164713 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@LJS9502_basic: California has more people on wellfare then any state. Read the link!

I googled your statement and the list I saw did not have them listed as such. I'm calling bs on your stance.

Avatar image for loganx77
#65 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: Its in the TCs link.

Even the LA times realises it.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#66 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164713 posts) -

@loganx77: That leads me to someone's twitter account. Anyway the list I gave you is from official sources on how much welfare is used by state.

Avatar image for loganx77
#67 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: I just linked you to a LAtimes aricle. Read it and realise why your official sources are outdated.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#68 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164713 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@LJS9502_basic: I just linked you to a LAtimes aricle. Read it and realise why your official sources are outdated.

Copied your link. Took me to Ryan Meua's twitter post.

Avatar image for loganx77
#69 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Try this.

Avatar image for Wolfgang133
#70 Posted by Wolfgang133 (66 posts) -

@luxuryheart said:
@joebones5000 said:

Another "smart" conservative thread goes down in flames. lolololol

Sad thing is, they have a point here. It is hypocritical that white liberals talk about being progressive, yet they drive gentrification. This is why bigger cities have inflated price tags, to keep the 'bad' people out. They move all poor people of color in an area together which drives the crime rates. This is an actual discussion that needs to be had.

However, Republican politicians only care about their pockets and Republican voters are dumb as ****. They literally just say, "so much for the progressive Lib!" That is the most intelligent response, and that's just sad. Then you have some that blame taxes and welfare for the poverty. Like, what?

Republicans only care about their pockets? I won't argue that one. But don't tell me that Democrats are less concerned about theirs. They are just as venal or corrupt.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#71 Posted by joebones5000 (1841 posts) -

@Wolfgang133 said:
@luxuryheart said:
@joebones5000 said:

Another "smart" conservative thread goes down in flames. lolololol

Sad thing is, they have a point here. It is hypocritical that white liberals talk about being progressive, yet they drive gentrification. This is why bigger cities have inflated price tags, to keep the 'bad' people out. They move all poor people of color in an area together which drives the crime rates. This is an actual discussion that needs to be had.

However, Republican politicians only care about their pockets and Republican voters are dumb as ****. They literally just say, "so much for the progressive Lib!" That is the most intelligent response, and that's just sad. Then you have some that blame taxes and welfare for the poverty. Like, what?

Republicans only care about their pockets? I won't argue that one. But don't tell me that Democrats are less concerned about theirs. They are just as venal or corrupt.

lol. Clearly Democrats are not nearly as corrupt as republicans. All one needs to do to see that is to look at current republican tax, health, gun, and social policy, all of which favor the wealthy over everyone else.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#72 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (44912 posts) -

The housing market in California is absolutely asinine. When you attach the housing market with high taxes, housing shortages, inflated renting rates, you end up with a powder keg of individuals living check to check or barely to keep their heads above water. It's no surprise homeless has boomed, and with that, the cesspool of drunks, tweakers, and other strung-out transients (most of which get money from the good tax payers). If I could go an entire shift without a call for service related to a transient, that would be a miracle. Some of the neighborhoods I patrol is like stepping into a third world country.

Avatar image for Wolfgang133
#73 Posted by Wolfgang133 (66 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

The housing market in California is absolutely asinine. When you attach the housing market with high taxes, housing shortages, inflated renting rates, you end up with a powder keg of individuals living check to check or barely to keep their heads above water. It's no surprise homeless has boomed, and with that, the cesspool of drunks, tweakers, and other strung-out transients (most of which get money from the good tax payers). If I could go an entire shift without a call for service related to a transient, that would be a miracle. Some of the neighborhoods I patrol is like stepping into a third world country.

Agree. Housing market is way overpriced in California. Like the state itself real estate here is just overrated. One could easily buy something larger and better looking with acres of land in other states, for the same price as a plain mediocre 2 bedroom house in a bland looking neighborhood here in California. I'm curious what profession are you in? law enforcement or security?

Avatar image for Wolfgang133
#74 Edited by Wolfgang133 (66 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@LJS9502_basic: https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Try this.

Here is an interesting quote from that article:

The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

Avatar image for Wolfgang133
#75 Edited by Wolfgang133 (66 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@Wolfgang133 said:
@luxuryheart said:
@joebones5000 said:

Republicans only care about their pockets? I won't argue that one. But don't tell me that Democrats are less concerned about theirs. They are just as venal or corrupt.

lol. Clearly Democrats are not nearly as corrupt as republicans. All one needs to do to see that is to look at current republican tax, health, gun, and social policy, all of which favor the wealthy over everyone else.

Are you that naive to think that somehow democrats are really less likely to be corrupt than republicans because they don't favor the rich as much? Does it not occur to you that the democrats just want to get rich off their ignorant dumbass followers, whom they exploit just as badly as the conservatives do with their own?

Avatar image for joebones5000
#76 Posted by joebones5000 (1841 posts) -

@Wolfgang133 said:
@joebones5000 said:
@Wolfgang133 said:
@luxuryheart said:
@joebones5000 said:

Republicans only care about their pockets? I won't argue that one. But don't tell me that Democrats are less concerned about theirs. They are just as venal or corrupt.

lol. Clearly Democrats are not nearly as corrupt as republicans. All one needs to do to see that is to look at current republican tax, health, gun, and social policy, all of which favor the wealthy over everyone else.

Are you that naive to think that somehow democrats are really less likely to be corrupt than republicans because they don't favor the rich as much? Does it not occur to you that the democrats just want to get rich off their ignorant dumbass followers, whom they exploit just as badly as the conservatives do with their own?

It's quite clear that Democrats are most certainly less corrupt. One only need look at the current administration. This whole assertion that both parties are ultimately the same is patently absurd.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#77 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164713 posts) -
@Wolfgang133 said:
@loganx77 said:

@LJS9502_basic: https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Try this.

Here is an interesting quote from that article:

The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

California has a higher population than those other states. Doesn't negate that the states listed as biggest recipients of welfare are the states I posted above.......red states.

Avatar image for n64dd
#78 Posted by N64DD (10459 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@Wolfgang133 said:
@joebones5000 said:
@Wolfgang133 said:
@luxuryheart said:

Republicans only care about their pockets? I won't argue that one. But don't tell me that Democrats are less concerned about theirs. They are just as venal or corrupt.

lol. Clearly Democrats are not nearly as corrupt as republicans. All one needs to do to see that is to look at current republican tax, health, gun, and social policy, all of which favor the wealthy over everyone else.

Are you that naive to think that somehow democrats are really less likely to be corrupt than republicans because they don't favor the rich as much? Does it not occur to you that the democrats just want to get rich off their ignorant dumbass followers, whom they exploit just as badly as the conservatives do with their own?

It's quite clear that Democrats are most certainly less corrupt. One only need look at the current administration. This whole assertion that both parties are ultimately the same is patently absurd.

The DNC was bought the last election.

Do you know what corruption is?

Avatar image for loganx77
#79 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: California has more federal funding then any state in the country. Its also in the worst poverty. The link i posted pretty much makes that clear as day.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#80 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164713 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@LJS9502_basic: California has more federal funding then any state in the country. Its also in the worst poverty. The link i posted pretty much makes that clear as day.

And yet all the other sources I've seen say that's incorrect.

Avatar image for loganx77
#81 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: Thats because all the other sources dont factor in cost of living into poverty which they absolutely should. If i make 100k a year but still barely scrape by in a one bedroom apartment am i better off then the guy who makes 60k a year and owns a decent home in a safe neighborhood?

As far as the federal funding California skipped welfare reform. So they have fallen behind. The amount of immigrants receiving some type of goverment assistance has also increased dramatically. Here is a part of the article.

"It's as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives."

Avatar image for joebones5000
#82 Posted by joebones5000 (1841 posts) -

@n64dd said:
@joebones5000 said:
@Wolfgang133 said:
@joebones5000 said:
@Wolfgang133 said:

Republicans only care about their pockets? I won't argue that one. But don't tell me that Democrats are less concerned about theirs. They are just as venal or corrupt.

lol. Clearly Democrats are not nearly as corrupt as republicans. All one needs to do to see that is to look at current republican tax, health, gun, and social policy, all of which favor the wealthy over everyone else.

Are you that naive to think that somehow democrats are really less likely to be corrupt than republicans because they don't favor the rich as much? Does it not occur to you that the democrats just want to get rich off their ignorant dumbass followers, whom they exploit just as badly as the conservatives do with their own?

It's quite clear that Democrats are most certainly less corrupt. One only need look at the current administration. This whole assertion that both parties are ultimately the same is patently absurd.

The DNC was bought the last election.

Do you know what corruption is?

Oh? Please feel free to demonstrate your claim.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#83 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (6922 posts) -

The one thing I like about republicans is that they don't promise welfare to the masses. The masses are completely stupid buffoons. But on the other hand, while they don't give out welfare to the masses, the Republicans are happy to give out welfare to corporations. All these anti free market commie rules like patents, IP, infinite trade marks, not to mention the anti free market regulations that the commie Republicans love. On top of all this ridiculous welfare the Republicans give out to corporations, the screw the market over even further by keeping minimum wages low and cutting social spending.

I like the "idea" of the Republican party, that people should work and not be reliant on the government. But that only works when you don't put your foot in the scale, and tip the balance to favor a select few. Bunch of con artist scumbags.

Let's have a pure free market, and I'll be happy to cut corporate tax rates all the way to 0.

Balance the market, get rid of all the communist subsidies and anti free market regulations and the market will literally fix itself over night. Not everything will improve, but I guarantee that the inequality that we see today will be nowhere near as bad.

Avatar image for zaryia
#84 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: I did counter your other claims. At no point did they say they accounted for cost of living.

Please stop posting lies. You provided no data refuting any of my facts.

"Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states (i.e. housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau."

Red states on average are the shitholes. Your first sentence in this thread was objectively incorrect. Lower gdp, most federal aid need, lower average income, higher poverty, worse health, more fatties, and worse education.

P.S. You attractiveness study only looked at politicians, and included EU and AU. They did not separate state by state for USA. It's useless. Also is in no way relevant to the discussion we were having either way.

Avatar image for loganx77
#85 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: Err yes i did try reading the links. By your Standard California is the biggest shithole in the US its also the most liberal and its the highest wellfare state in the nation. Its also the standard you libs want the rest of the country to follow.

You can break it down by state all you want. I live in a red state and there is still lots of liberals. Factually they are far less attractive.

Avatar image for zaryia
#86 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: Err yes i did try reading the links. By your Standard California is the biggest shithole in the US its also the most liberal and its the highest wellfare state in the nation.

Yes, and red states are the shitholes onaverage. Nothing refutes this fact. I'm glad to be living in a state with less fat, dumb, and poor people.

@loganx77 said:

Its also the standard you libs want the rest of the country to follow.

Red states seem to be following that standard already, given the data.

@loganx77 said:

Like most blue states California is mostly a shithole.

The above sentence is wrong, and facts show the opposite. By far. When I saw that sentence I laughed out loud. It's like me saying Hannity is a die hard liberal. Opposite Day? Red states are the shit holes of American, with a few exceptions for both Blue/Red.

P.S. I'm not a liberal.

Avatar image for loganx77
#87 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: That lib IQ isn't working for you is it? Lets break it down for you slowly.. none of the links you posted have California on the list, now why is that? When its already proven that if you factor in cost of living they are number one? Ohh thats right because cost of living wasn't factored.

And all your studies about libs having higher IQs have been debunked. It is true however they are generally uglier, more likely to be psycho and far less to be open minded. And no you are a raging leftist who claims to be a centrist.

Ps. They changed the supplemental poverty level in 2016 and haven't done a full census yet. So your findings are outdated.

Avatar image for zaryia
#88 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

Lets break it down for you slowly.. none of the links you posted have California on the list, now why is that? When its already proven that if you factor in cost of living they are number one? Ohh thats right because cost of living wasn't factored.

Your opinion is noted, but you have not offered citation proving your original claim:

@loganx77 said: Like most blue states California is mostly a shithole.

So far all data shows the opposite, significantly so. You have given zero links showing this. I have given several links directly showing the opposite. Most shithole states are red states. Lower GDP, Lower Income, Higher Poverty, Worse education, worse health, higher obesity, use the most federal aid, etc.

P.S. I'm not liberal. But it's not wise to bring up intelligence, education in red states is worse on average.

Avatar image for loganx77
#89 Edited by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: And all your evidence is outdated BS and i explained in detail why. You will not have the revised list that factores in the updated SPL until the next Census. Thats not an opionion thats a fact.

Avatar image for zaryia
#90 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: And all your evidence is outdated BS and i explained in detail why. You will not have the revised list that factores in the updated SPL until the next Census. Thats not an opionion thats a fact.

So when you stated this,

@loganx77 said: Like most blue states California is mostly a shithole.

It was a lie?

Because the most up to date data we have available shows the opposite - by significant margins. How did you reach your conclusion? Link?

Avatar image for loganx77
#91 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: How was it a lie? California was not even in the top 10. Once they updated the SPL it jumped to number 1. Considering most blue states have a significantly higher cost of living how do you think they will fair?

Avatar image for zaryia
#92 Posted by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: How was it a lie? California was not even in the top 10. Once they updated the SPL it jumped to number 1. Considering most blue states have a significantly higher cost of living how do you think they will fair?

So you completely speculated(made up) the claim that most blue states are shitholes, when all of the latest available data we have shows the complete opposite.

Unwise.

Avatar image for loganx77
#93 Posted by LoganX77 (1057 posts) -

@zaryia: You stuck with data that you know for a fact is outdated and claimed it to be true. Unwise!

Avatar image for zaryia
#94 Edited by Zaryia (5510 posts) -

@loganx77 said:

@zaryia: You stuck with data that you know for a fact is outdated and claimed it to be true. Unwise!

I used the most up to date available data. You used zero data, you randomly wrote these words:

@loganx77 said: Like most blue states California is mostly a shithole.

This statement is fictional.

Avatar image for SUD123456
#95 Posted by SUD123456 (5118 posts) -

Typical red vs blue BS, as if poverty were that simple. I laugh at you morons for overly simplifying everything and reducing your arguments to political tropes.

Avatar image for Wolfgang133
#96 Posted by Wolfgang133 (66 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Wolfgang133 said:
@loganx77 said:

@LJS9502_basic: https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Try this.

California has a higher population than those other states. Doesn't negate that the states listed as biggest recipients of welfare are the states I posted above.......red states.

It may have a higher population but that still doesn't deny what the article states about California's spending on welfare programs. Despite the vast amount of spending on welfare the poverty level in this state has worsened instead of improving. With all that billions spent the poverty level should be dropping not increasing. Unless the population in poverty is increasing faster than the state can spend on it's welfare programs.