Home Prices Tank
Ray
May 21 - Bloomberg (Dan Levy): "San Francisco Bay Area home
prices fell 41% in April from a year earlier as foreclosures
accounted for almost half of all sales, MDA DataQuick said.
The median price dropped to $304,000 from $518,000 a year
earlier. That's 54% below the peak reached two years ago."
...
Bitch Skanky Piglosi Galore@swine.gov Skanky Piglosi Galore
"Ray" <r...@no.net> wrote in message
news:o5bk15548pd923jrf...@4ax.com...
Wwho cares that a bunch of Rich Nasty Piglosi Galore voters are losing money
?
Bitch Skanky Piglosi Galore@swine.gov Skanky Piglosi Galore
a War Veteran
Ray <r...@no.net> wrote:
good time to buy?
--
It's amazing what you can do. If...
you put your mind to it.
David J. Hughes
Let us know when they drop below $100,000, about what you would pay for
a California ticky-tacky style home in most of the the rest of the US.
Dingadong@texprison.net The Jihad-O-P
"a War Veteran" <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgewkspam-F7F8...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
I bought another house in early May. A Northern California fixer-upper for
what would normally be 4 times as much money as I paid. I'm renovating the
whole thing, adding a new kitchen, new bathroom with solar cells, a pond and
a pool.
Right now it's essentially 4 walls with a good roof and 1/2 acre of mountain
beauty.
I will invest a quarter million and when Obama gets things rolling again in
5 years or so it'll be up for sale at $1 million.
Awaken21
The cash poor Republican States where most of the tax money from the
rich socialist states like California and New York ends up?
Dingadong@texprison.net The Jihad-O-P
"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:r2zSl.69972$9w4....@newsfe08.iad...
BS. In the East apartments sell for millions.
robert bowman
> BS. In the East apartments sell for millions.
They did, before the Masters of the Universe found new careers walking dogs
and coaching the girls' field hockey team in the local school.
John Galt
Investing the 250K in AIG stock is lower risk.
JG
>
>
Bitch Skanky Piglosi Galore@swine.gov Skanky Piglosi Galore
"Awaken21" <lukec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21610fa5-de0d-4ab4...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
==============
Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
state income taxes and property taxes.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>x-no-archive:yes
>Maybe the Mexicans will drive the homosexuals out of SF like they are
>doing to the blacks in LA.....
Welll...that war isnt decided yet. But it is indeed ongoing and quite
bloody.
Gunner
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno
Awaken21
Piglosi Galore@Swine .gov> wrote:
> "Awaken21" <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
Gunner Asch
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
>> worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
>> state income taxes and property taxes.
>
>
>Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
>socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
>socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
>unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
>quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
>opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
Its fascinating to note how many Democrat states are poverty stricken
and how many Republican states are not.
But Leftards never mention or point those states out.
I wonder why?
They generally point out 4-5 Red states and pass on commenting on the
other 20 or so well off Red States, and refuse to comment on the other
18 or so poor Blue states.
The buffoonery of the Leftist is laughed at.
Laugh laugh laugh
Awaken21
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>
>
> >> Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
> >> worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
> >> state income taxes and property taxes.
>
> >Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
> >socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
> >socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
> >unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
> >quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
> >opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
>
> Its fascinating to note how many Democrat states are poverty stricken
> and how many Republican states are not.
Yes, because the poverty stricken red states outnumber poverty
stricken blue states. And that's just counting each state as one. When
we start going by actual cash and wealth generated, it becomes a real
joke. Red States either suck at making money, or maybe their best and
brightest flee to democratic states first chance they get. Either way,
red states are the biggest beneficiaries of the redistribution of
federal tax dollars.
>
> But Leftards never mention or point those states out.
>
> I wonder why?
>
Here's what George W. Bush's numbers said. 9 of the 10 poorest states
are Republican, and 8 of the 10 richest states are Democratic (Someone
here actually posted this part of the findings on this newsgroup).
Federal tax dollars flow from Democratic states who occupy the highest
rungs of the income and wealth creation in the US, to the Republican
states far more of whom are poor.
John R. Carroll
"Here's what George W. Bush's numbers said. 9 of the 10 poorest states
are Republican, and 8 of the 10 richest states are Democratic (Someone
here actually posted this part of the findings on this newsgroup)."
Red Nation is where the real subsidies are going.
Mississippi gets $2.02 back for every dollar they pay.
West Virginia, $1.76.
Virginia, $1.51
Tennesee, $1.27
Alabama, $1.66
Alaska, $1.84
Arkansas, $1.41
Kentucky, $1.51
Kansas, $1.12
Montana, $1.47
North Dakota, $1.68
Oaklahoma, $1.36
South Carolina, $1.35
South Dakota, $1.53
Arizona, $1.19
California, $0.73
Conneticut, $0.69
Delaware, $0.77
Illinois, $0.75
Massachusetes, $0.82
Michigan, $0.92
New Hampshier, $0.71
New Jersey, $0.61
New York, $0.79
Washington, $0.88
JC
Gunner Asch
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 7:39�pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>>
>> <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
>> >> worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
>> >> state income taxes and property taxes.
>>
>> >Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
>> >socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
>> >socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
>> >unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
>> >quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
>> >opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
>>
>> Its fascinating to note how many Democrat states are poverty stricken
>> and how many Republican states are not.
>
>Yes, because the poverty stricken red states outnumber poverty
>stricken blue states. And that's just counting each state as one.
Cites?
When
>we start going by actual cash and wealth generated, it becomes a real
>joke. Red States either suck at making money, or maybe their best and
>brightest flee to democratic states first chance they get. Either way,
>red states are the biggest beneficiaries of the redistribution of
>federal tax dollars.
Cites?
>
>>
>> But Leftards never mention or point those states out.
>>
>> I wonder why?
>>
>
>Here's what George W. Bush's numbers said. 9 of the 10 poorest states
>are Republican, and 8 of the 10 richest states are Democratic (Someone
>here actually posted this part of the findings on this newsgroup).
>Federal tax dollars flow from Democratic states who occupy the highest
>rungs of the income and wealth creation in the US, to the Republican
>states far more of whom are poor.
Cites?
Strabo
> In article <o5bk15548pd923jrf...@4ax.com>,
> Ray <r...@no.net> wrote:
>
>> May 21 - Bloomberg (Dan Levy): "San Francisco Bay Area home
>> prices fell 41% in April from a year earlier as foreclosures
>> accounted for almost half of all sales, MDA DataQuick said.
>> The median price dropped to $304,000 from $518,000 a year
>> earlier. That's 54% below the peak reached two years ago."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>
> good time to buy?
>
Depends on the location.
In my opinion, urban properties in California will fall much more over
the next few years.
If you want a rough idea of how far, check the housing prices from the
1960s/70s.
John Galt
> On May 25, 7:39 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>>
>> <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
>>>> worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
>>>> state income taxes and property taxes.
>>> Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
>>> socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
>>> socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
>>> unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
>>> quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
>>> opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
>> Its fascinating to note how many Democrat states are poverty stricken
>> and how many Republican states are not.
>
> Yes, because the poverty stricken red states outnumber poverty
> stricken blue states.
On what measure? Numerically, no doubt. By GDP or population? Less
persuasive an argument, suddenly.
The largest "red state" is Texas. When they realized they were running a
budget gap (almost all states are) they simply took the money that they
had put there in the "rainy day fund" out of the bank to close the gap.
Did CA, NJ, or NY have a "rainy day fund?" Or is the current plan in
those states to have the Feds raid Texas' to fund their own fiscal mess?
It should also be said that LIKE CA, NY, and NJ, Texas is a net CREDITOR
to the rest of the nation, meaning that it pays more out in Fed taxation
than it takes in.
That's a fairly massive "exception to your rule", indicating that your
"rule" really isn't one.
JG
Awaken21
> Awaken21 wrote:
> > On May 25, 7:39 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>
> >> <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
> >>>> worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
> >>>> state income taxes and property taxes.
> >>> Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
> >>> socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
> >>> socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
> >>> unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
> >>> quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
> >>> opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
> >> Its fascinating to note how many Democrat states are poverty stricken
> >> and how many Republican states are not.
>
> > Yes, because the poverty stricken red states outnumber poverty
> > stricken blue states.
>
> On what measure? Numerically, no doubt. By GDP or population? Less
> persuasive an argument, suddenly.
Also by money, which pretty much ends all argument.
>
> The largest "red state" is Texas. When they realized they were running a
> budget gap (almost all states are) they simply took the money that they
> had put there in the "rainy day fund" out of the bank to close the gap.
>
> Did CA, NJ, or NY have a "rainy day fund?" Or is the current plan in
> those states to have the Feds raid Texas' to fund their own fiscal mess?
>
> It should also be said that LIKE CA, NY, and NJ, Texas is a net CREDITOR
> to the rest of the nation, meaning that it pays more out in Fed taxation
> than it takes in.
Anecdotal. The money flows from Blue states to Red. It's just a fact.
You can point out the exceptions, but that's just what they are,
exceptions.
>
> That's a fairly massive "exception to your rule", indicating that your
> "rule" really isn't one.
>
> JG
>
Again, numbers are just numbers. The money flows from Blue states to
Red. Your anecdotal and therefore non-substantive arguments not
withstanding.
Awaken21
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> "Awaken21" <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hey JC, let us know where these numbers came from?
John Galt
> On May 26, 9:16 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Awaken21 wrote:
>>> On May 25, 7:39 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>>>> <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Thje socialist states California and Oregon and NY are theones with the
>>>>>> worst housing price collapsees because of their outrageous state taxes and
>>>>>> state income taxes and property taxes.
>>>>> Yeah, and the poor republican states still need the over taxed
>>>>> socialized federal tax money from the richest states, which are
>>>>> socialist democrat, to build the simplest road or keep their
>>>>> unemployed from starving to death in their welfare states. It must be
>>>>> quite embarassing. If the republicans weren't already only a marginal
>>>>> opinion on the national scene it might be downright humiliating.
>>>> Its fascinating to note how many Democrat states are poverty stricken
>>>> and how many Republican states are not.
>>> Yes, because the poverty stricken red states outnumber poverty
>>> stricken blue states.
>> On what measure? Numerically, no doubt. By GDP or population? Less
>> persuasive an argument, suddenly.
>
> Also by money, which pretty much ends all argument.
Actually not, but see below.
>
>> The largest "red state" is Texas. When they realized they were running a
>> budget gap (almost all states are) they simply took the money that they
>> had put there in the "rainy day fund" out of the bank to close the gap.
>>
>> Did CA, NJ, or NY have a "rainy day fund?" Or is the current plan in
>> those states to have the Feds raid Texas' to fund their own fiscal mess?
>>
>> It should also be said that LIKE CA, NY, and NJ, Texas is a net CREDITOR
>> to the rest of the nation, meaning that it pays more out in Fed taxation
>> than it takes in.
>
> Anecdotal. The money flows from Blue states to Red. It's just a fact.
> You can point out the exceptions, but that's just what they are,
> exceptions.
>
>> That's a fairly massive "exception to your rule", indicating that your
>> "rule" really isn't one.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
> Again, numbers are just numbers.
Numbers are "non-anecdotal". They are facts.
The money flows from Blue states to
> Red. Your anecdotal and therefore non-substantive arguments not
> withstanding.
There is nothing "anecdotal" about the fact that Texas had cash on hand
to cover their deficit, and there is nothing "anecdotal" about the fact
that Texas is a net creditor.
History matters. Who were the poorest states in the 80's? 70's? 60's?
50'? Were "republicans" always running them?
The fact which people with little tiny partisan brains like to ignore is
that these have been the poorest states in the union since Reconstruction.
JG
Awaken21
That's nice, but I was discussing the overall picture, not any
individual state. So bringing up Texas, or any state individually for
that matter, is anecdotal. And in this case a diversion from the
overall point, which is net money. The wealth in the US flows from
Blue States who create it, to Red States who spend it. The anecdotal
story of Texas not withistanding.
I suspect the reason your not arguing that point, but instead are
bringing up anecdotes and looking back to history starting from 30
years ago, is because you can't actually argue the point, you've got
nothing, The money is flowing the way it is flowing, there's nothing
there to argue with.
> The fact which people with little tiny partisan brains like to ignore is
> that these have been the poorest states in the union since Reconstruction.
>
I'm an independent centrist, I don't care which party is in charge,
I'm concerned with competence. I'm just commenting on the way the
money is flowing. You bringing up partisanship speaks volumes about
yourself, and nothing about the subject which you have failed to
directly address for 2 posts now, nor does it reflect anything about
me personally.
John Galt
It remains the big elephant in the room that people who harp on this
non-issue choose to ignore.
And in this case a diversion from the
> overall point, which is net money. The wealth in the US flows from
> Blue States who create it, to Red States who spend it. The anecdotal
> story of Texas not withistanding.
Texas's GDP is somewhat larger than the sum of most of the states under
discussion, thus diminishing the "net money" position.
>
> I suspect the reason your not arguing that point, but instead are
> bringing up anecdotes
The point is made, and made well, without anecdotes.
and looking back to history starting from 30
> years ago, is because you can't actually argue the point, you've got
> nothing, The money is flowing the way it is flowing, there's nothing
> there to argue with.
The way the money is flowing is not under dispute. Connecting the money
to the current political environment in those states is questionable, in
that (1) these are HISTORICALLY the poorest states in the country (e.g.,
their being poor is not a new occurrence) and (2) it assumes causality
without evidence.
>
>
>> The fact which people with little tiny partisan brains like to ignore is
>> that these have been the poorest states in the union since Reconstruction.
>>
>
> I'm an independent centrist, I don't care which party is in charge,
> I'm concerned with competence.
Well, then you're are frustrated as me, then, with our political
reality. Very little competency can be seen.
JG
Lawyerkill
>
> That's nice, but I was discussing the overall picture, not any
> individual state. So bringing up Texas, or any state individually for
> that matter, is anecdotal. And in this case a diversion from the
> overall point, which is net money. The wealth in the US flows from
> Blue States who create it, �to Red States who spend it. The anecdotal
> story of Texas not withistanding.
>
> I suspect the reason your not arguing that point, but instead are
> bringing up anecdotes and looking back to history starting from 30
> years ago, is because you can't actually argue the point, you've got
> nothing, The money is flowing the way it is flowing, there's nothing
> there to argue with.
>
How do you come up with which is a blue state and which is red? NJ has
been run by the Democrats for the past 8 years, before that it was run
by the republicans for 8 years. In them 16 years NJ paid in more than
it got back. So I'm missing your point here since with both parties we
had the same results.
Awaken21
I'm only talking about right now. The original person asked "Who
would care if Nancy Pelosi and SF in particular are having hard
times. So since it seems to me the people who would care are the ones
recieving the greatest amount of monetary gain from them, and so I
pointed out that right now that would be Republican states.
Here in Florida we also switch back and forth every few election
cycles.
There is a really good argument that casts a different light on what
I'm saying, but no one else has made it yet. Instead I'm getting
anecdotes and past data. Sigh, can't even pick a reasonably decent
debate around here....
Wilson Woods
>
> [...]
House prices, not "home" prices. You buy or sell a house; you make a home.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't just look at right now, you have to look at the history to
see if the arguement has any merit, and I can't see where it does.
This is like coming up with a stock picking system and playing it
based on backtesting of one day. There are thousands of variables and
you have to consider them.
John Galt
This entire line of reasoning was designed by partisans in an attempt to
show that "Republican management" (if there is such a thing) was broadly
incompentent.
Behind the "reasoning" is a hope-beyond-hope (or perhaps a belief) that
Americans are too stupid to reason out the issue. The poorer states in
the nation (generally thinking here in terms of the southeast) have been
the poor states in the nation since Reconstruction. They have remained
the poorer states regardless of what political party was in charge for
over 150 years.
YET SUDDENLY, we are expected to believe that this poverty is the cause
of the (generally speaking) GOP-leaning government that have tended to
run these states for the last 20 years. (Before that, these states
barely had viable state GOP parties.)
As for the Big Refutation In the Room (Texas), Texas is regularly
ignored in this "line of reasoning', for obvious reasons. In 07, the
Texas GDP was 1.14T. Only California is larger, at 1.8T, and CA is
hardly in a position to be held up by partisans as a model of fiscal
responsibility.
I could go on, but the facts don't bear out the partisan case.
JG
lorad
> May 21 - Bloomberg (Dan Levy): "San Francisco Bay Area home
> prices fell 41% in April from a year earlier as foreclosures
> accounted for almost half of all sales, MDA DataQuick said.
> The median price dropped to $304,000 from $518,000 a year
> earlier. That's 54% below the peak reached two years ago."
And I'm free, free fallin'
Yeah, I'm free, free fallin'
All the vampires walkin' through the valley
Move west down Wall Street Boulevard
And all the bad boys are standing in the shadows
And the good girls are home with broken hearts
{Refrain}
Free fallin', I'm a-free fallin', I'm a
Free fallin', I'm a-free fallin'
Awaken21
Not any bigger economically than New York or California and I didn't
bring them up individually either. Although CA was part of the
original question I was answering.
> And in this case a diversion from the
>
> > overall point, which is net money. The wealth in the US flows from
> > Blue States who create it, to Red States who spend it. The anecdotal
> > story of Texas not withistanding.
>
> Texas's GDP is somewhat larger than the sum of most of the states under
> discussion, thus diminishing the "net money" position.
>
>
>
> > I suspect the reason your not arguing that point, but instead are
> > bringing up anecdotes
>
> The point is made, and made well, without anecdotes.
>
> and looking back to history starting from 30
>
> > years ago, is because you can't actually argue the point, you've got
> > nothing, The money is flowing the way it is flowing, there's nothing
> > there to argue with.
>
> The way the money is flowing is not under dispute. Connecting the money
> to the current political environment in those states is questionable, in
> that (1) these are HISTORICALLY the poorest states in the country (e.g.,
> their being poor is not a new occurrence) and (2) it assumes causality
> without evidence.
The question I responded to was "Who cares if San Fran and Nancy
Pelosi are having bad economic times." Seemed to me the people who
would care the most are the people recieveing the tax money generated
by the economy from that area, and which as you have admitted is
mostly Republican states. That's all, I wasn't discussing history and
I wasn't discussing causes, nor arguing in a general way, strictly
making a statement on the way is moving right now and who has the most
to lose right now.
>
>
>
> >> The fact which people with little tiny partisan brains like to ignore is
> >> that these have been the poorest states in the union since Reconstruction.
>
> > I'm an independent centrist, I don't care which party is in charge,
> > I'm concerned with competence.
>
> Well, then you're are frustrated as me, then, with our political
> reality. Very little competency can be seen.
>
Well...depends. I'm happy with the direction Obama is headed, he's a
fellow centrist and the way he handles decisions works for me.
Practicality over theory and ideology. Hopefully Charlie Crist
(moderate republican) will win the open senate seat from FL. I do
worry about congress in general. Also our Florida State legislature,
which is so clueless so often...my big problem is the Democrats down
here haven't really proved to be any more competent when they were
given their chance. You really have to take politicians locally on a
person by person basis and pretty much completely disregard party
affiliation.
John Galt
Fair enough, but it will be more than a little interesting to see how
this "tax creditor, tax debtor" situation looks after the 2009 returns
are filed. The numbers people base their view of this debate on are the
2004 numbers that a particular partisan blogged about in 2005. In
California at least, a significant amount of those federal taxes
collected were fueled by debt related to mortgage; I doubt if CA in 2009
will be paying out more than they'll be taking in. (They were only a
creditor by 11% of gross in 2004.
>>
>>
>>>> The fact which people with little tiny partisan brains like to ignore is
>>>> that these have been the poorest states in the union since Reconstruction.
>>> I'm an independent centrist, I don't care which party is in charge,
>>> I'm concerned with competence.
>> Well, then you're are frustrated as me, then, with our political
>> reality. Very little competency can be seen.
>>
>
> Well...depends. I'm happy with the direction Obama is headed, he's a
> fellow centrist and the way he handles decisions works for me.
> Practicality over theory and ideology. Hopefully Charlie Crist
> (moderate republican) will win the open senate seat from FL. I do
> worry about congress in general. Also our Florida State legislature,
> which is so clueless so often...my big problem is the Democrats down
> here haven't really proved to be any more competent when they were
> given their chance. You really have to take politicians locally on a
> person by person basis and pretty much completely disregard party
> affiliation.
Agreed. That's the argument for a weak central government, placing power
"closer to the people."
JG
us...@domain.invalid
John boy always brings up partisanship.......particularly when the facts
go against his argument.
Gunner Asch
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well...depends. I'm happy with the direction Obama is headed, he's a
>fellow centrist
Centrist? Only if you belong to the Communist Party.
Awaken21
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>
>
> >Well...depends. I'm happy with the direction Obama is headed, he's a
> >fellow centrist
>
> Centrist? Only if you belong to the Communist Party.
>
I already knew you were a far right wacko, no need to make an
announcement.
Awaken21
11% is alot with numbers that big. We'll see, but I suspect it will
remain about the same. California's economy is not only the biggest,
it is one of the most, if not the most diversified.
>
>
> >>>> The fact which people with little tiny partisan brains like to ignore is
> >>>> that these have been the poorest states in the union since Reconstruction.
> >>> I'm an independent centrist, I don't care which party is in charge,
> >>> I'm concerned with competence.
> >> Well, then you're are frustrated as me, then, with our political
> >> reality. Very little competency can be seen.
>
> > Well...depends. I'm happy with the direction Obama is headed, he's a
> > fellow centrist and the way he handles decisions works for me.
> > Practicality over theory and ideology. Hopefully Charlie Crist
> > (moderate republican) will win the open senate seat from FL. I do
> > worry about congress in general. Also our Florida State legislature,
> > which is so clueless so often...my big problem is the Democrats down
> > here haven't really proved to be any more competent when they were
> > given their chance. You really have to take politicians locally on a
> > person by person basis and pretty much completely disregard party
> > affiliation.
>
> Agreed. That's the argument for a weak central government, placing power
> "closer to the people."
>
It's always a balance. If decentralized governement were working like
a magic bullet there never would have been a constitutional
convention.
Awaken21
I can if I'm answering a specific question that doesn't itself look
beyond right now.
Curly Surmudgeon
Define your terms. Decentralized government works just fine for those in
the decentralized area. Read the two arguments, federalist and anti-
federalist papers. Centralized government is inevitable a choice of
power mongers and urban areas. Rural areas are overwhelmingly against
centralized government. The argument is a cultural clash.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$13,300,000,000,000.00, Angry Yet? Arrest Bush
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
You must be posting from stocks. Meet Gunner Asche, who is far to the
right of Atilla the Hun and thinks Ghenghis Khan was a pacifist.
Gunner is the man who claims an IQ of 155, a welfare queen, in his own
words a "useless eater," owed some $300,000.00 in medical service costs
to his county, has 25 years of debt and leins to the State of California,
threatens to beat up anyone with whom he cannot intimidate, had multiple
strokes, is either 54, 55, 56 or 70 years old depending upon which post
you elect to believe, was CIA in Vietnam but has no DD-214, served in the
army under someone else's name and ID, makes $75/hour, lives on a vast
homestead with neighbors far away (or in a desert slum if you believe his
conflicting post), has a wife, is single, parties with two women 2 months
after his quad bypass, smokes 2 packs of tobacco a day, doesn't smoke,
spends evenings at a bar but doesn't drink, was the roll model for Rambo,
and transferred his wealth to avoid debt collectors from the State and
County.
He is also a prolific liar.
Gunner Asch
Actually..Im a libertarian.
But then..thats incomprehensible to a Marxist like you, isnt it?
Da Tovarish...remisch da spudatich.
Guner
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you disregard any data beyond, 'right now'? That's like is raining
outside and Obama is on TV and coming to the conclusion that if Obama
goes on TV it's going to rain.
Ken S. Tucker
Defense dollars flow unequally to states, such as
to Calf and Tx, which is an fed artificial stimulous
paid by the USA in general, so I think that needs
to be taken into account.
Ken
David J. Hughes
> "David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:r2zSl.69972$9w4....@newsfe08.iad...
>> Ray wrote:
>>>
>>> May 21 - Bloomberg (Dan Levy): "San Francisco Bay Area home
>>> prices fell 41% in April from a year earlier as foreclosures
>>> accounted for almost half of all sales, MDA DataQuick said.
>>> The median price dropped to $304,000 from $518,000 a year
>>> earlier. That's 54% below the peak reached two years ago."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Let us know when they drop below $100,000, about what you would pay for a
>> California ticky-tacky style home in most of the the rest of the US.
>
> BS. In the East apartments sell for millions.
>
>
In NYC, yes. A tiny portion of the country.
Move to NJ, prices are about twice the average.
Head north to Plattsburgh, NY, get a 5 bedroom, 2 bath for 167K.
David J. Hughes
Lt's take a look where that money is being spent, shall we?
Defense spending Welfare
($billion)
Mississippi $2.02 6.9 0.9
West Virginia, $1.76. 1.1 0.6
Virginia, $1.51 40.7 4.5
Tennessee, $1.27 6.9 2.9
Alabama, $1.66 8.1 1.5
Alaska, $1.84 1.8 0.8
Arkansas, $1.41 1.2 1.1
Kentucky, $1.51 2.6 2.1
Kansas, $1.12 2.6 1.2
Montana, $1.47 0.5 0.6
North Dakota, $1.68 0.4 0.6
Oklahoma, $1.36 2.6 1.6
South Carolina, $1.35 4.8 1.8
South Dakota, $1.53 0.6 0.5
Arizona, $1.19 10.4 2.8
_____ ____
90.6 22.3
California, $0.73 42.9 43
Connecticut, $0.69 8.2 2.9
Delaware, $0.77 0.2 0.6
Illinois, $0.75 6.0 8.5
Massachusetts, $0.82 10.8 6.0
Michigan, $0.92 5.3 7.8
New Hampshire, $0.71 1.4 0.7
New Jersey, $0.61 7.1 6.8
New York, $0.79 10.7 20.3
Washington, $0.88 7.9 5.8
_____ ____
93.4 102.4
Sources:
Defense
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/us-defense-spending-by-state-per-cap
(2006)
Welfare http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ (2008 numbers)
Looks like most of that money going to the red states is for national
Defense (good, patriotic states that they are)
Blue states are sucking up the welfare.
If you want to see where the money really goes, see:
http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/
for the 1993 to 2007 reports.
John Galt
Well, that's an excellent point. In order for stats like this to make
much sense, you have to normalize for Federal expenditures that by
design will flow unequally. Defense likely being the most significant
item to back out of the numbers.
JG
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff Mc
Defense spending also has a very low multiplier effect, so it stimulates
the local economy far less than other types of government spending.
John Galt
Granted, but the statistic being discussed is simply if a state takes in
more money from the goverment than it sends out. Multipliers aren't an
issue.
JG
John R. Carroll
I don't know why anyone would go anywhere.
You can get all of this stuff from the BLS and Census Bureau web sites but
you can't build your own tables. You have to select from their menus. The
St. Louis Fed has a cool builder but it's only able to use their data.
I subscribe to Econometrics, an online tool that compiles data from whatever
search criteria I choose to build and it uses a variety of sources -
something that can be tailored.
California, for example, pays out aprox. $9,000.00 per capita, and recieves
back $6,700 on the same per capita basis is 43rd out of 50 in federal
dollars recieved per federal dollar paid and is ranked 38th out of 50th on a
per capita basis. Fourteen percent of the taxes paid to our federal
government as income tax come from California tax payers.
Now, lets have a look at Alaska, primarily because I get this one a lot.
Alaskan's pay aprox. $5,500.00 per capita and recieve over $14,000.00 back
on a per capita basis. They rank 3rd as a State and 1st on a per capita
basis.
JC
Jeff Mc
Ok. But I was thinking about it's effect on the prosperity of the
recipient state. Lots of poorer southern states get lots of defense
dollars, with relatively less to show for it, which alters their tax
outflow/inflow ratio.
John R. Carroll
"Jeff Mc" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:IM0Tl.47588$19....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
There isn't anything meaningful in a collection of numbers Jeff.
Knowing, for example, that LA went from 25th to 12th in the State rankings
between 2004 and 2005 is only valuable if put into context.
The problem with American taxes isn't that they are too hoigh or poorly
distributed. Both of those may be the case but the underlying truth that the
numbers don't and won't reveal is the value per dollar.
That is the real issue and farting around with numbers is not a substitute
for a real answer to a question that has been avoided like the plague.
Nobody want to sit down and put anything on paper to describe what an
American life ought to actually look like and then figure out the costs -
look at the values - and then adjust the balance.
National health care is among the most difficult. Americans have got to
decide as a country, the point at which the public will draw a line and let
someone die. Anything beyond that line will be the province of private
insurance.
JC
John R. Carroll
"Awaken21" <lukec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94e25f12-f3d2-4ec6...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
See my earlier response.
One thing worth noting is that tax figures newer than 2006 aren't worth a
thing and per capita information hasn't been reliable since 2005 and won't
be again until after the census has been completed. Nature of the beast.
JC
John Galt
Well, yea. But if you try to analyze this down to second and third order
effects you'll drive yourself crazy. :-)
JG
Strabo
I can tell you right now that the results of the next census will be
bogus.
The shenanigans of the census bureau and ACORN in counting millions of
illegal aliens and skewing racial categories will make the census
meaningless for all purposes but political tactics.
>
> JC
>
>
Lawyerkill
wrote:
> Awaken21 wrote:
> > On May 25, 11:36 pm, "John R. Carroll"
> > <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> >> "Awaken21" <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:839a7bee-98ca-45f2...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Here's what George W. Bush's numbers said. �9 of the 10 poorest states
> >> are Republican, and 8 of the 10 richest states are Democratic (Someone
> >> here actually posted this part of the findings on this newsgroup)."
Sure a lot of the blue States are richer, they got most of the bail
out money. AIG, CITI, GM, etc. all in blue States.
us...@domain.invalid
Not at the time of this study they didn't.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
So what!
Awaken21
The US tried complete decentralization as our first model, it didn't
work the way we needed, so we had a constitutional convention, came up
with the constitution and struck a balance between the two theories of
governance. That's all I said. That it's become a cultural polarity is
another discussion.
.
Awaken21
Interesting numbers but doesn't prove causes. It could be that defense
dollars flow to our financial centers because that's what we're
defending. How can we know which came first?
Awaken21
No, I just didn't need it to answer the question.
Awaken21
Actually, these numbers were gathered before the bailouts. That's a
valid point JG brought up, we have to wait and see what the next
numbers will say, alot has changed.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
To show a cause one of the things you do is look at the history, not
the, 'right now'. For as long as I can remember the people of NJ have
paid in more than we have gotten, it didn't change when one party or
another controlled the sate, or who was president. So Blue, Red is not
a factor, I'll bet that's the same with many of those state. But the
burden is not on me to show that, it's on the person making the
assertion. So far I've seen no evidence to support a claim that Blue
or Red means anything. You have to show the conditions of the state
when it was Blue and when it was Red, and that's just a start,
remember crrelation does not imply causation.
Awaken21
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>
> >On May 26, 1:51 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 May 2009 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>
> >> <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Well...depends. I'm happy with the direction Obama is headed, he's a
> >> >fellow centrist
>
> >> Centrist? Only if you belong to the Communist Party.
>
> >I already knew you were a far right wacko, no need to make an
> >announcement.
>
> Actually..Im a libertarian.
>
> But then..thats incomprehensible to a Marxist like you, isnt it?
>
Your inability to distinguish between a centrist and someone to the
far left is like wearing neon sign on your forehead. You can call
yourself whatever you want but that flashing light on your forehead
speaks the loudest every time.
Not that you needed something so obvious, you're posts also speak
pretty clearly where you stand on the left/right line.
Awaken21
Yes, THIS conversation and question require a little research and a
historical looksee.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you claim these is a correlation you sure do.
You know that reminds me of my dear departed italain mother. She would
go into a store and buy a lottery issue and everytime the clerk would
give her the ticket they would wish her, 'good luck'. She would come
out of the store mad as hell saying, "Every time I'm wished good luck
I never win". She was right, she never won when they said that and to
her there was a correlation. Never mind the odds were a million to one
against her to begin with, she didn't deal with that fact.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right now I'm going at the cause of the universe, but I'll get on it
as soon as I finish that.
Awaken21
hahaha. Well in the meantime I'll be here doing some mind melting.
-=DirtBag©
> Ray wrote:
>>
>>
>> May 21 - Bloomberg (Dan Levy): "San Francisco Bay Area home
>> prices fell 41% in April from a year earlier as foreclosures
>> accounted for almost half of all sales, MDA DataQuick said.
>> The median price dropped to $304,000 from $518,000 a year
>> earlier. That's 54% below the peak reached two years ago."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ....
>
>
> Let us know when they drop below $100,000, about what you would pay for
> a California ticky-tacky style home in most of the the rest of the US.
San Francisco can not be easily valued... From your post it appears you
may never have been to SF. How do you value the weather, the ocean
breezes, the people.. SF is costly no doubt. But if your able to afford
living there you would have a different opinion...imo There are many
nice places to life in the USA. San Francisco is just one of several
that gives you value in the way of lifestyle.
us...@domain.invalid
Which means the study is valid for the time period covered. The same
time period Republicans were bashing Liberals everyday about wasteful
spending, welfare etc, while the states that supported the
republican/conservative cause them were the biggest suckers of the
government tit.
Even Texas, being touted as a "Red State" exception, is barely
in the black, getting between 92- 98 cents back for every dollar they've
sent to Washington from 2000-2005, while also getting one of the highest
levels of disaster relief of any state from the Feds.
Ken S. Tucker
I think the idea is to keep the fed geographically neutral
economically, and the DoD being a $500 billion customer
is very prominent. But for complex reasons, certain regions
are favored with more defense contracts than others,
senators are always watching that carefully, trying to get
DoD business for their state.
When a base closes, the local economy usually takes a
major hit, since the "multiplier effect" means 5000-10000
people (including families) transferred away, that don't
spend money at the local shopping malls etc.
Ken
John Galt
Well, the financial centers definitely preceded the military
establishment in the US. We didn't start to maintain a large military
infrastructure until after WW2.
Not sure how that affects the core issue, though. The point is simply if
you remove military funds from the equation, how does that affect this
question of tax balancing? It would be interesting to see the numbers
with the military removed.
JG
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Valid for what? It shows no causation of anything, even for the time
of the study, so what is your point? Geez, do you look outside and see
it raining and today is Wed. as say, oh it's raining and it's Wed.,
Wed must have caused the rain. Correlation does not imply causation.
John Galt
Its simply history. As is clear, these have been the poorest states in
the Union since Reconstruction. If you look at their histories, most had
virtually no viable GOP party in them until the 80's.
It's more than a little self-serving to *suddenly* notice that they have
become Republican voters, and therefore pretend that 150 years of
poverty is the fault of 20 years of GOP management.
>
> Even Texas, being touted as a "Red State" exception, is barely
> in the black, getting between 92- 98 cents back for every dollar they've
> sent to Washington from 2000-2005, while also getting one of the highest
> levels of disaster relief of any state from the Feds.
Which makes the example even more impressive. Texas continues to support
the one of the two pockets of real massive poverty in the nation in the
Rio Grande Valley, disaster relief is largely tied to square mileage and
southeast coastal exposure, AND STILL we are net contributors, even if
only by a few cents on the dollar.
That's some good fiscal management.
JG
Curly Surmudgeon
Gunner also claims to be a buddhist.
He also claims to have hung his dog to death off his front porch on a
choker chain and threatens anyone disagreeing with him to duels and
fights. (that he backs out of)
Gunner also claims to the a staunch supporter of personal responsibility
and supported Bush in all his programs. Then he availed himself of the
public dole to the tune of $250,000 to $400,000 for medical services
because he smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day, didn't buy health
insurance while making $75/hr because he was buying guns and machine
tools.
Gunner also claims to be married. And single.
Gunner also claims to spend many/most evenings at the local bar but
doesn't drink.
Gunner claims to have acreage with neighbors far away. He also claims an
address in a California desert slum which looks like a 7,000' lot with
trailers around the neighborhood. And 25 years of leins for non-payment
of taxes on the hovel.
Then there is Gunners claim to have an IQ of 155...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
us...@domain.invalid
Seems pretty clear and factual to me, for whatever reason more Red
states are money suckers than blue. How ever you try and slice it,
States like California & New York that routinely get bashed as being
havens for " leftists", "commies", "free spending liberal Wackos" are
keeping red states above water.
us...@domain.invalid
which means they have been on the fat tit for over 100 years now.
>
> It's more than a little self-serving to *suddenly* notice that they have
> become Republican voters, and therefore pretend that 150 years of
> poverty is the fault of 20 years of GOP management.
To absolve the GOP of the state of affairs these states have been in for
last 20 years is denial of reality.
>>
>> Even Texas, being touted as a "Red State" exception, is barely
>> in the black, getting between 92- 98 cents back for every dollar
>> they've sent to Washington from 2000-2005, while also getting one of
>> the highest levels of disaster relief of any state from the Feds.
>
> Which makes the example even more impressive. Texas continues to support
> the one of the two pockets of real massive poverty in the nation in the
> Rio Grande Valley, disaster relief is largely tied to square mileage and
> southeast coastal exposure, AND STILL we are net contributors, even if
> only by a few cents on the dollar.
>
> That's some good fiscal management.
It's no big claim to fame, or as exceptional as you've tried to make it
out to be. It just makes Texas one of "the best of the worst".
>
> JG
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good then I'm sure you can show us that when NJ was a red state 8
years ago it got more money back then it paid in.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh and BTW, how do you define a Blue state and a Red state.
us...@domain.invalid
Nobody said all Red States were getting more than they paid in, only
more of them than Blue States were getting back more than they paid in.
New Jersey since as far back as 1981 has always got back far less
than what they paid in. BTW half of the counties in New Jersey, are
considered swing counties.
us...@domain.invalid
Go look at the start of the thread.........
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now you defining a Blue state and a Red state depending on how many
counties are considered swing counties?
John Galt
That will have to be your opinion, then. Others may differ.
JG
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, and I ask again, what is your point?
Arkansas was one of the poorest states in the union even when Clinton
ran it for 16 years.
Now I haven't checked all of them on the list(Where's the other 25
States?), but I'm sure the poorest ones were even the poorest when
they were blue states. But since you're the one making the assertion
of factual causation the burden is on you to prove, so far you have
show no facts to support that.
I think you are confusing Causation for Correlation. The list shows
nothing as far as causation, and even to say correlation is pushing
it.
So give us the other 25 states for starters
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh and can you list the swing counties in NJ, I live here and would
like to know what I'm missing.
us...@domain.invalid
Nope, quite trying to read in more than I said. It's simple statement of
fact regarding volatility in that state.
us...@domain.invalid
Five cents on the dollar would not be considered an exceptional or
onerous contribution. As a tip to a waitress it would be considered
that of a cheapskate ;~)
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
What volatility? Name the claimed counties please.
John Galt
I'm good with that. I much prefer to live in a state where what we take
in is about the same as what we give out, since if we were following the
intent of the Framers, all states would be more or less net/net, anyway,
with minor variations having to do with some of the matters we've
already discussed.
When I look at those lists, the first thing I think is "WTF is New
Jersey doing with a 38% imbalance?" If this is the system we're going to
have, where money is constantly flowing to DC where it is hasseled over
by congresscritters, you can't come to any other conclusion that their
legislators are asleep at the wheel.
Of course, Lautenberg's well into his 80's, so that thought may be more
true that one would hope.
JG
us...@domain.invalid
My point is I did not set the qualifications, nor start this thread. If
you want to find out how it was defined go back and look it up.
>
> Arkansas was one of the poorest states in the union even when Clinton
> ran it for 16 years.
It didn't get any worse under him either, in 82 Arkansas was getting
back $1.28 for every dollar sent in taxes, when he left in 92 it was
still $1.28 for every dollar sent in taxes. As of 2000-2005 it's been
running in the $1.39- $1.51 range.
>
> Now I haven't checked all of them on the list(Where's the other 25
> States?), but I'm sure the poorest ones were even the poorest when
> they were blue states. But since you're the one making the assertion
> of factual causation the burden is on you to prove, so far you have
> show no facts to support that.
Trying to move the goal posts again I see. That was never the claim, the
original poster was discussing the time period 2000-2005, not the 19th
century, not the 1970's-80's or 90's. In the time period 2000-2005, the
ones that cried the loudest about over taxation were republicans, whose
base seemed to be the ones who are paying the least.
>
> I think you are confusing Causation for Correlation. The list shows
> nothing as far as causation, and even to say correlation is pushing
> it.
And I think you are simply confused ;~) What it states is simple fact,
backing up the original posters position that during the period he
mentioned more red states than blue were getting more in federal aid
than they sent to the feds as taxes. It's a fact,and a matter of public
record.
>
> So give us the other 25 states for starters
Get off your buttocks and look it all up for yourself,
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why, I wasn't the one making the claims
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now if you bothered to do this research before you posted you would
see that no Causation between who runs a state and the tax money they
get back. CA, in 2003 a democrat ran the state and they were at .79,
in 2005 a republican ran the state and it was .78, about the same.
Louisiana under a Democrat 2005 $ 1.78. oh and it's always been over a
dollar since 1984 no matter who was the governor. We already covered
New Jersey and Arkansas, run by a democrat and get more in tax dollars
than they paid.
Go you see it's you that's claiming that list has some type of
meaning, so it's your assertion to prove and so far you have not shown
anything.
Lawyerkill
No, if you are going to try and show some type of Causation you have
to go back and look at the record under both parties. You can't just
pick dates you want to limit it to and leave out other dates that
shows you wrong.
>
>
> > I think you are confusing Causation for Correlation. The list shows
> > nothing as far as causation, and even to say correlation is pushing
> > it.
>
> And I think you are simply confused ;~) What it states is simple fact,
> backing up the original posters position that during the period he
> mentioned more red states than blue were getting more in federal aid
> than they sent to the feds as taxes. It's a fact,and a matter of public
> record.
>
>
No, there was no relationship shown between what color a state is and
what taxes they get back, sorry I'm not fooled by nonsesense. If you
want to show a relationship you have to show the figures from both
conditions and if you want to show causation you have to show all the
factors that governs the issue, and he did not.
You can show almost anything by limiting the data that conforms to
want to show and not showing the data that hurts your claim.
> > So give us the other 25 states for starters
>
> Get off your buttocks and look it all up for yourself,http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf- Hide quoted text -
us...@domain.invalid
I could agree with that, but disagree with the hypocrisy of dumping on
states that contribute far more than they get by representatives of
states that don't even approach the one to one level.
anyway,
> with minor variations having to do with some of the matters we've
> already discussed.
>
> When I look at those lists, the first thing I think is "WTF is New
> Jersey doing with a 38% imbalance?" If this is the system we're going to
> have, where money is constantly flowing to DC where it is hasseled over
> by congresscritters, you can't come to any other conclusion that their
> legislators are asleep at the wheel.
I'd wonder about that as well, but then what is the alternative?
us...@domain.invalid
The original claim is a statistical fact, I didn't make it, I checked it
out and responded. If you do not believe the original statement to be
correct look it up.
"Here's what George W. Bush's numbers said. 9 of the 10 poorest states
are Republican, and 8 of the 10 richest states are Democratic
Red Nation is where the real subsidies are going.
Mississippi gets $2.02 back for every dollar they pay.
West Virginia, $1.76.
Virginia, $1.51
Tennesee, $1.27
Alabama, $1.66
Alaska, $1.84
Arkansas, $1.41
Kentucky, $1.51
Kansas, $1.12
Montana, $1.47
North Dakota, $1.68
Oaklahoma, $1.36
South Carolina, $1.35
South Dakota, $1.53
Arizona, $1.19
California, $0.73
Conneticut, $0.69
Delaware, $0.77
Illinois, $0.75
Massachusetes, $0.82
Michigan, $0.92
New Hampshier, $0.71
New Jersey, $0.61
New York, $0.79
Washington, $0.88
us...@domain.invalid
Again you are avoiding the original claim, the historical norm for the
period covered is as it was stated.
Lawyerkill
> Again you are avoiding the original claim, the historical norm for the
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you avoid logic. What I've said is that the claim is meaningless,
there is no calimed relationship. If a condition was happening before
the years stated then the years stated can't be the cause or have a
relationship. Many of the conditions in the list was started before
the years stated so it has no relationship with those years. The cause
or claimed relationship could not be true because the condition was
there before those years.
I have shown the fact that these conditions already existed before the
years stated, and under both parties, they didn't start 10 years ago,
they started way before that.
And to claim NJ and CA are the richest of states when they can't even
pay their bills is dishonest and the last time I looked CA was run by
a republican so that's even wrong.
And no it's not a, 'statistical fact' it's meaningless. To find a
relationship or cause you go back to when it started, not 10 years
later and claim a relationship.
Lawyerkill
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Now if you bothered to do this research before you posted you would
> > see that no Causation between who runs a state and the tax money they
> > get back. CA, in 2003 a democrat ran the state and they were at .79,
> > in 2005 a republican ran the state and it was .78, about the same.
> > Louisiana under a Democrat 2005 $ 1.78. oh and it's always been over a
> > dollar since 1984 no matter who was the governor. We already covered
> > New Jersey and Arkansas, run by a democrat and get more in tax dollars
> > than they paid.
>
> > Go you see it's you that's claiming that list has some type of
> > meaning, so it's your assertion to prove and so far you have not shown
> > anything.
>
> Again you are avoiding the original claim, the historical norm for the
>
> - Show quoted text -
PS. There is no relationship between the starts of those events and
the years claimed, that's a fact, so I'm missing your point, but even
if those events started in those years I have another, 'statistical
fact' for you, correlation does not imply causation