[TheRealVille]

The 10 poorest states in the nation are all republican/conservative states. Coincidence? Me thinks not.
http://www.thestreet.mobi/story/12821534...erica.html

[WideRight05]

Side note, TRV, before I make my opinion, did you find that article on the site I posted with the article about our country dividing? Just curious, since I don't think I've seen you use the street before.

[TheRealVille]

Side note, TRV, before I make my opinion, did you find that article on the site I posted with the article about our country dividing? Just curious, since I don't think I've seen you use the street before.

It showed up on my twitter feed.

[Bob Seger]

Could be a little deceiving...A home that costs 100,000 in Kentucky could go for 1,000,000+ in California , New York, Chicago, etc. etc, etc...

In business or everyday living in general, it's not what you have coming in that determines wealth, it's what you've got going out.


Thus someone making $80,0000.00 in LA, SanFranciso, New York City, etc, might not be as well off as the person making $40,000.00 in Kentucky, Alabama, when you consider the bank for your buck.


If someone checks the charts on Blue States I think you find that the cost of living is probably way way more than some of what are being called red states...I thought Kentucky and West Virginia were blue states to begin with... How many republican governors have you seen in each state in the last 20 years or for that matter the last 100?


As far as food stamps and other assistant benefits go, you can thank Carl D. Perkins and Robert C. Byrd for destroying the pride and the willingness to work for the areas they were representing. They created far more damage than they ever did good sitting in Washington.

[WideRight05]

Oh ok. I thought maybe you explored the site when I posted it. That was only the first time I had seen it.

[Bob Seger]

Could be a little deceiving...A home that costs 100,000 in Kentucky could go for 1,000,000+ in California , New York, Chicago, etc. etc, etc...

In business or everyday living in general, it's not what you have coming in that determines wealth, it's what you've got going out.


Thus someone making $80,0000.00 in LA, SanFranciso, New York City, etc, might not be as well off as the person making $40,000.00 in Kentucky, Alabama, when you consider the bank for your buck.


If someone checks the charts on Blue States I think you find that the cost of living is probably way way more than some of what are being called red states...I thought Kentucky and West Virginia were blue states to begin with... How many republican governors have you seen in each state in the last 20 years or for that matter the last 100?


As far as food stamps and other assistant benefits go, you can thank Carl D. Perkins and Robert C. Byrd for destroying the pride and the willingness to work for the areas they were representing. They created far more damage than they ever did good sitting in Washington.

bang

[RunItUpTheGut]

These top 10 list have been the same for years. Always the southern states. But I have to ask, is it not adjusted in any way? I see as many nice homes in Kentucky as I do any other state. Just because there rural parts of people that's a burden to society doesn't mean it should harbor the overall view.


If UK is in bad shape, look no further than Obama and Brashear. Thank God both have term limits. Im still trying to figure out if Ole Steve ever started gambling or not.

[Bob Seger]

These top 10 list have been the same for years. Always the southern states. But I have to ask, is it not adjusted in any way? I see as many nice homes in Kentucky as I do any other state. Just because there rural parts of people that's a burden to society doesn't mean it should harbor the overall view.


If UK is in bad shape, look no further than Obama and Brashear. Thank God both have term limits. Im still trying to figure out if Ole Steve ever started gambling or not.

No it's not adjusted. The cost of living is so ridiculous in these other places. That is the reason. Whoever does these lists evidently cant comprehend things like that.

[WideRight05]

No it's not adjusted. The cost of living is so ridiculous in these other places. That is the reason. Whoever does these lists evidently cant comprehend things like that.

Which also explains a problem with taxing somebody at the highest rates when they make $250,000 per year. Some jobs that might pay $20,000 - $25,000 per year in Kentucky pay as high as $80,000 - $85,000 up there. Sure looks like a lot more, but the cost of living makes up for that. For what it's worth, I was in California a while back on the beach and overheard a lifeguard (I'm going to guess he was a college student) saying he made over $18 per hour while talking to a friend. In most areas in Kentucky, the highest you would probably see a summer lifeguard make is $10 per hour.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Could be a little deceiving...A home that costs 100,000 in Kentucky could go for 1,000,000+ in California , New York, Chicago, etc. etc, etc...

In business or everyday living in general, it's not what you have coming in that determines wealth, it's what you've got going out.


Thus someone making $80,0000.00 in LA, SanFranciso, New York City, etc, might not be as well off as the person making $40,000.00 in Kentucky, Alabama, when you consider the bank for your buck.


If someone checks the charts on Blue States I think you find that the cost of living is probably way way more than some of what are being called red states...I thought Kentucky and West Virginia were blue states to begin with... How many republican governors have you seen in each state in the last 20 years or for that matter the last 100?


As far as food stamps and other assistant benefits go, you can thank Carl D. Perkins and Robert C. Byrd for destroying the pride and the willingness to work for the areas they were representing. They created far more damage than they ever did good sitting in Washington.

Bob Seger is absolutely correct. Level of income is meaningless. It is what you can purchase with the dollars at your disposal. The cost of real estate is probably the best example. A nice home in most of the Commonwealth selling for $200,000.00 would cost well over a million dollars in much of fruit and nut land.

I have a relative who is a lawyer in Los Angeles. He earns multitudes more than do I. However, I have a far nicer home than him. And, while mine has no mortgage, he is paying out the butt.

Thus, TheRealVille's sources are irrelevant (as usual).

[C.E. Riggs]

The 10 poorest states in the nation are all republican/conservative states. Coincidence? Me thinks not.
http://www.thestreet.mobi/story/12821534...erica.html

All? Actually they are not, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia all have more registered democrats than republicans.

[nky]

Oh don't you just love statistics?

[TheRealThing]

Could be a little deceiving...A home that costs 100,000 in Kentucky could go for 1,000,000+ in California , New York, Chicago, etc. etc, etc...

In business or everyday living in general, it's not what you have coming in that determines wealth, it's what you've got going out.


Thus someone making $80,0000.00 in LA, SanFranciso, New York City, etc, might not be as well off as the person making $40,000.00 in Kentucky, Alabama, when you consider the bank for your buck.


If someone checks the charts on Blue States I think you find that the cost of living is probably way way more than some of what are being called red states...I thought Kentucky and West Virginia were blue states to begin with... How many republican governors have you seen in each state in the last 20 years or for that matter the last 100?


As far as food stamps and other assistant benefits go, you can thank Carl D. Perkins and Robert C. Byrd for destroying the pride and the willingness to work for the areas they were representing. They created far more damage than they ever did good sitting in Washington.

Bob Seger is absolutely correct. Level of income is meaningless. It is what you can purchase with the dollars at your disposal. The cost of real estate is probably the best example. A nice home in most of the Commonwealth selling for $200,000.00 would cost well over a million dollars in much of fruit and nut land.

I have a relative who is a lawyer in Los Angeles. He earns multitudes more than do I. However, I have a far nicer home than him. And, while mine has no mortgage, he is paying out the butt.

Thus, TheRealVille's sources are irrelevant (as usual).

Agree with all the above. The argument in RV's link looks persuasive until examined against the backdrop of reality. I have a niece in San Francisco and I can affirm your conclusions are spot on. In fact, I would have said a million dollar home in San Francisco would be more like a 80 thousand dollar fixer upper around here.

The cost of living is insane on the west coast. Construction contractors get paid 5 times as much for their services as do those in Kentucky. Taxes, insurance, you name it are through the roof.

[TheRealVille]

Housing prices weren't the only factor. They included unemployment rate, percentage on welfare, poverty rate. In the end, blue states are way better off than red states, in the big picture. Too bad, that housing is only one aspect they talked about.

[TheRealVille]

All? Actually they are not, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia all have more registered democrats than republicans.

They all go red at the polls though, on most state and national elections. All are "red" states. Nice try.

[C.E. Riggs]

They all go red at the polls though, on most state and national elections. All are "red" states. Nice try.

Nice Try?? What is that supposed to mean? I'm a registered democrat. You can spin your information anyway you want, but facts are facts, the states you mentioned are controlled by democratic voters. That's the problem with this country, too many people support a politician because he/she is a republican or democrat.

[TheRealVille]

Nice Try?? What is that supposed to mean? I'm a registered democrat. You can spin your information anyway you want, but facts are facts, the states you mentioned are controlled by democratic voters. That's the problem with this country, too many people support a politician because he/she is a republican or democrat.

And they go red almost without fail. They are all considered red states in elections. I guess "nice try" was a little harsh, it seemed you were trying the usual spin tactics others use here. FTR, The Real Thing is a registered democrat. Read though all his posts, and tell me whether he votes red or blue. Registration means almost nothing, how the state goes as a whole means everything.

[TheRealThing]

Here is the national ranking of the 50 states for fiscal solvency.

EXCERPT---
"After combining and weighting the four indices to create an overall fiscal-condition index, the five states in the best shape were Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming, while the five in the worst shape were California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, and New Jersey coming in dead last."
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/14/an...erica-are/

10 states from thread link rank with 1 being best
Oklahoma ranked 16th
South Carolina 25th
Louisiana 21st
Tennessee 7th
New Mexico 45th
Kentucky 31st
Alabama 10th
West Virginia 32nd
Arkansas 18th
Mississippi 20th


I guess it depends on who you ask

[C.E. Riggs]

And they go red almost without fail. They are all considered red states in elections. I guess "nice try" was a little harsh, it seemed you were trying the usual spin tactics others use here. FTR, The Real Thing is a registered democrat. Read though all his posts, and tell me whether he votes red or blue. Registration means almost nothing, how the state goes as a whole means everything.

Since 1950 the ten states you mentioned have been controlled by a democrat governor between 60 to 70 percent of the time.

Why would anyone vote for a person just because of their party affiliation? We should be voting for the best person for the job, regardless of their political affiliation. Look, I supported Hillary in 08, but I knew Obama would not make a good president, so I didn't vote for him in 08 or 12.

[TheRealThing]

Since 1950 the ten states you mentioned have been controlled by a democrat governor between 60 to 70 percent of the time.

Why would anyone vote for a person just because of their party affiliation? We should be voting for the best person for the job, regardless of their political affiliation. Look, I supported Hillary in 08, but I knew Obama would not make a good president, so I didn't vote for him in 08 or 12.

Well stated and may I be among the first to commend you for having an outlook that puts country above party. :Clap:

[TheRealVille]

Since 1950 the ten states you mentioned have been controlled by a democrat governor between 60 to 70 percent of the time.

Why would anyone vote for a person just because of their party affiliation? We should be voting for the best person for the job, regardless of their political affiliation. Look, I supported Hillary in 08, but I knew Obama would not make a good president, so I didn't vote for him in 08 or 12.

How did they do on the national level? I don't vote by party either, I vote for the good of the "people", and deems are better for the people. Republicans are better for corporations. It's just a simple fact. Democrats help the middle more, and I'm one of the middle, not to mention a union man. Republicans are all about busting my way of making money, so I vote democrat. I also don't like how conservatives think they can tell others how to live.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Housing prices weren't the only factor. They included unemployment rate, percentage on welfare, poverty rate. In the end, blue states are way better off than red states, in the big picture. Too bad, that housing is only one aspect they talked about.

I have a feeling that one day, the left will have a party start to rise that similar to the old democratic party. Call it the "tea party" of the left if you will, but one of these days, Reid, Pelosi, and all those other useless politicians will be gone and will no longer have the ability to intimidate them into losing.

Think about it. What if KY were to elect a deeply conservative democrat that didn't side with the liberal platform were seeing today. You have to admit, the left has gone to the extremes and when all of this new news wears off and people quit caring about some of the things that gets them elected, it could cause big problems for dems.

I find it very funny that the same democratic party that chose a black guy to be president and take up issues of gay marriage was once the party that use to lynch both kinds of people. You would have thought at some point they would have come up with a new party. I have a feeling one day the democratic party will slide to far to the left for even liberals like you and lose all support. Then what happens? As others have stated, there are more registered dems in most of the "poorest" states, and most of those states are southern....Generation after generation have turned there back on it.

[C.E. Riggs]

How did they do on the national level? I don't vote by party either, I vote for the good of the "people", and deems are better for the people. Republicans are better for corporations. It's just a simple fact. Democrats help the middle more, and I'm one of the middle, not to mention a union man. Republicans are all about busting my way of making money, so I vote democrat. I also don't like how conservatives think they can tell others how to live.

Are you talking about political parties on a National level? If so, I don't understand how you can say democrats are better for the people and republicans are better for corporations. I think the majority of those in both parties of the House and Senate should be voted out. The only time the democrats or republicans care about the people is during election years.

I'm also in the middle class, and the democrats have not helped me in the last six years, in fact I think Obama has done more to harm to the middle class than anyone has realized.

Do you think this administration is overstepping it's authority in regards to the EPA, school lunches etc?

[TheRealVille]

Are you talking about political parties on a National level? If so, I don't understand how you can say democrats are better for the people and republicans are better for corporations. I think the majority of those in both parties of the House and Senate should be voted out. The only time the democrats or republicans care about the people is during election years.

I'm also in the middle class, and the democrats have not helped me in the last six years, in fact I think Obama has done more to harm to the middle class than anyone has realized.

Do you think this administration is overstepping it's authority in regards to the EPA, school lunches etc?

No, how did those states vote in national elections since your date of 1950? Red or blue? All those states are considered red/conservative states. Kentucky, for example, has a democrat governor, but it is considered a conservative/red voting state.
No.

[Bob Seger]

Well I came across this little tidbit of information that comes from one of the most liberal news organizations out there...And it is ironic that this list is almost identical to the list of the 10 poorest states.....I think you guys will be absolutely amazed and astounded by the mirror images of these two lists.

So without further adieu let's get started with CNBC's list:

10.----South Carilina
9.-----Tennessee
8.-----Alabama
8.-----Indiana
6.-----Mississippi
5.-----West Virginia
4.----- Louisiana
3.-----Oklahoma
2.-----Arkansas

Anyone want to guess what the title of this list is?

OK OK I'll let you all in on it..

Drumroll please!!!!

Here ladies and gentlemen are the "THE 10 CHEAPEST STATES IN AMERICA TO LIVE IN"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101716172/page/1


Oh, and I almost forgot to mention what was the cheapest state in the whole United States to live in is according to CNBC.

So here we go, everyone lets please congratulate and rise to our feet and give a rousing standing ovation to RED leadership for making the state of KENTUCKY the #1 cheapest state in the whole country to live in...

[WideRight05]

Well I came across this little tidbit of information that comes from one of the most liberal news organizations out there...And it is ironic that this list is almost identical to the list of the 10 poorest states.....I think you guys will be absolutely amazed and astounded by the mirror images of these two lists.

So without further adieu let's get started with CNBC's list:

10.----South Carilina
9.-----Tennessee
8.-----Alabama
8.-----Indiana
6.-----Mississippi
5.-----West Virginia
4.----- Louisiana
3.-----Oklahoma
2.-----Arkansas

Anyone want to guess what the title of this list is?

OK OK I'll let you all in on it..

Drumroll please!!!!

Here ladies and gentlemen are the "THE 10 CHEAPEST STATES IN AMERICA TO LIVE IN"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101716172/page/1


Oh, and I almost forgot to mention what was the cheapest state in the whole United States to live in is according to CNBC.

So here we go, everyone lets please congratulate and rise to our feet and give a rousing standing ovation to RED leadership for making the state of KENTUCKY the #1 cheapest state in the whole country to live in...

Oh man!! Ouch. That is ownage. Nothing better than using a liberal's own sources against them. :lmao:

[TheRealVille]

^Again, the list takes in more than just housing. Did you read the poverty, unemployment, people on welfare percentages. On those percentages, the 10 states on the list had the highest percentage of all 3 categories. Kentucky might be the cheapest to live in, but it's the 5th ranking on highest unemployment, people on welfare, and poverty percentage.

[Bob Seger]

I cant speak for all of these states, but in the case of Kentucky and W Va. the Obama administration's war on coal has no doubt had to have had an effect on those numbers. It's not just a miner's job that is lost , it's all supporting business and the consumer retail business that are effected from the trickle down effect of lost miner jobs. As far as the welfare statistics, as I previously mentioned you can thank a lot of those numbers from the Carl D. Perkins and the Robert C. Byrds programs that have made this a generation after generation after generation society of dependents...There are no doubt deserving people that have to have those benefits to survive, but it has turned into nothing but a sham for drug abusing people to redeem their assistant benefits into instant cash to support their habits. Not to dismiss real poverty cases ,but people in this area also have a tendency to not prioritize necessities. Rather than spend their money on everyday staples they choose rather to get those new 4 wheelers, tattoos, iphones and the such instead of real food and everyday necessities..A lot of the current situations in eastern Ky and WVa is nothing but self inflicted consequences derived from very bad decisions . It all boils down to PRIDE...And that is something that will cease to exist when you have never ending government subsidies that encourage a society to be dependent and rewards it's constituency for laziness.

FDR, might have been an ultra liberal but at least he sponsored benefit programs where actual work was included in exchange for the benfits ..Eastern Kentucky was a huge benefactor of such programs as the WPA as an example..What is wrong with working in exchange for what you get from the government?

[Bob Seger]

Oh man!! Ouch. That is ownage. Nothing better than using a liberal's own sources against them. :lmao:

Seriously, I didn't mean to be dramatic or smart, but there is in reality a flip side to determining what numbers truly define poverty...Make $60k in Kentucky and you are considered to have a dang good job..Make $60k in LA, NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Honolulu, etc. and you'll be living on skid row.

A number designated as a poverty line number is not a one size fits all, as it is all dependent upon the region of the country in which you live and what it costs to live in that area.

[TheRealThing]

Seriously, I didn't mean to be dramatic or smart, but there is in reality a flip side to determining what numbers truly define poverty...Make $60k in Kentucky and you are considered to have a dang good job..Make $60k in LA, NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Honolulu, etc. and you'll be living on skid row.

A number designated as a poverty line number is not a one size fits all, as it is all dependent upon the region of the country in which you live and what it costs to live in that area.

The information, or the "10 poorest states" given in this list from "The Street" (a Rupert Murdoch company, LOL) is based on Census Bureau data. Census data, is a source which may not be considered all that accurate.