Seniors & Hunger: Worst Seven States [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Seniors & Hunger: Worst Seven States


muscogee
10-10-2012, 19:28
http://causes.msn.com/fighting_hunger/?section=gallerylong_4_2#section=gallerylong_4_2

All Red states.

Angry Fist
10-10-2012, 19:33
I'm surprised Florida didn't top the list. I used to volunteer at a soup kitchen down there, and the seniors were endless.

countrygun
10-10-2012, 19:43
And the saddest part is, no matter what we do, as long as we rank them, there will always be a worst seven States no matter what else we change.

It the mature of ranking things. and anybody is free to spin it however they please.

Guss
10-10-2012, 20:19
And the saddest part is, no matter what we do, as long as we rank them, there will always be a worst seven States no matter what else we change.

It the mature of ranking things. and anybody is free to spin it however they please.
But when the same states have the same problem year after year, it make you wonder about their ability to get things done.

countrygun
10-10-2012, 20:23
But when the same states have the same problem year after year, it make you wonder about their ability to get things done.

Maybe they are making old people faster than they should

muscogee
10-10-2012, 20:35
Maybe they are making old people faster than they should

But they're still all Red. Care to guess why?

countrygun
10-10-2012, 20:39
But they're still all Red. Care to guess why?

Cuz they ain't blue? I dunno I don't have your economic experience, my business was successful.So why don't you tell me?

Gunnut 45/454
10-10-2012, 22:38
And why are they going hungery! Well do you think the cost of livin has gone up on average of 15% under Obamamoa! If they are living just on SSAN ! Then yea there going to be more hungery seniors! Lets see the dollar has lost 49% of it's value under Obamamoa. If the senoirs wanted to work they can't cause there's 23 million other people needing work cause Obamamoa hasn't created a job making economic situation. There taxes have gone up under Obamamoa and will continue to go up as he spends us into oblivian. Maybe if he hadn't wasted 5.4 Trillion dollars we'd be in a better place and the seniors wouldn't be going hungery!:steamed:

countrygun
10-10-2012, 22:43
And why are they going hungery! Well do you think the cost of livin has gone up on average of 15% under Obamamoa! If they are living just on SSAN ! Then yea there going to be more hungery seniors! Lets see the dollar has lost 49% of it's value under Obamamoa. If the senoirs wanted to work that can't cause there's 23 million other peopel needing work cause Obamamoa hasn't created a job making economic situation. There taxes have gone up under Obamamoa and will continue to go up as he spends us into oblivian. Maybe if he hadn't wasted 5.4 Trillion dollars we'd be in a better place and the seniors wouldn't be going hungery!:steamed:

You know, it reminds me of a question I asked a few weeks ago, and strangely, no one would answer so I'll bring it up again.

suppose a man worked all his life and had a million dollars in the bank. If he had retired before Obama took office what would the buying power of the interest on that money, his retirement income, have been?

what would it be now?

Gunnut 45/454
10-10-2012, 22:54
countrygun
That would be $10,000 a year at current interest rates- but remember it would be taxed at 15%. I know the pain of this when my dad passed in 2007 he had accured just over 1 million dollars, after taxes- 45% death tax we kids got what was left, 4 of my sibblings still were tax by there states at another 45% on what they got! Now if that isn't BS I don't know what is! My Dad was taxed while making that money through 35 years of hard work- taxed every year on the investment income then ****ed for another 45% when he died! And the Dumocrats still keep ****ing us cause they will not let the Death tax die!:steamed:

Guss
10-10-2012, 22:57
...

suppose a man worked all his life and had a million dollars in the bank. If he had retired before Obama took office what would the buying power of the interest on that money, his retirement income, have been?

what would it be now?
Pretty much nothing in interest. But the big corporatocracy loves that low interest, and they fund congress.

But as far as state by state comparisons of interests, I bet it doesn't vary much, so there must be another reason why certain states have a problem.

ChuteTheMall
10-10-2012, 23:08
Must be some reason this wasn't a top 10 list.:eat::fred:

countrygun
10-10-2012, 23:13
Pretty much nothing in interest. But the big corporatocracy loves that low interest, and they fund congress.

But as far as state by state comparisons of interests, I bet it doesn't vary much, so there must be another reason why certain states have a problem.

You are really an economic whizz kid aren't you:upeyes:

It isnt the "States" that "have the problem" genius, it is the individuals and that is because big Government Obamao has driven the economy in the crapper and money isn't circulating (News flash JK Galbraith Jr, Corporations make MORE money when money is flowing).

Now I can't speak for the other States but I can bloody well give you a microcosm of the US in my State. We are a "republican County, in a Democratic State. We are very often a retirement destination. Retirees move here for a variety of reasons and a lot of them are on fixed incomes or on incomes related to the market. They have generally been a bit better off than most. Now, they are having to sell their retirement homes for less than they paid (thank you liberals and the loans that caused the bubble) and move to more "affordable" accomodations or locals and many of them are reversing the "child moving back in with the parents" and moving in with their kid not for medical reasons, but for economic ones. Now is that the fault of my County being solidly Republican? NO But as a Republican County it WAS a more friendly retirement location because of far lower County taxes. We drew more retirees, so we have more retirees and if they are huting we have more hurting retirees.

Pretty blipping simple.

kirgi08
10-10-2012, 23:16
:popcorn:

countrygun
10-10-2012, 23:29
countrygun
That would be $10,000 a year at current interest rates- but remember it would be taxed at 15%. I know the pain of this when my dad passed in 2007 he had accured just over 1 million dollars, after taxes- 45% death tax we kids got what was left, 4 of my sibblings still were tax by there states at another 45% on what they got! Now if that isn't BS I don't know what is! My Dad was taxed while making that money through 35 years of hard work- taxed every year on the investment income then ****ed for another 45% when he died! And the Dumocrats still keep ****ing us cause they will not let the Death tax die!:steamed:

exactly. but when they retired not only were interest rate higher but costs were lower. It is not the fault of the majority party in a State.

In our case people moved here because we have lower taxes

we have lower taxes because we have less services

they made that choice to take advantage, financially, of it.

I moved here before I retired for a number of reasons and was aware of it too.

Again, the cause of their poverty isn't the majority party of that State.

Sam Spade
10-11-2012, 00:48
http://causes.msn.com/fighting_hunger/?section=gallerylong_4_2#section=gallerylong_4_2

All Red states.

For every complex question, there is a simple answer…and it is wrong.
H.L. Mencken

What delicious irony. I had no idea you were so skilled at it.

muscogee
10-11-2012, 08:45
And why are they going hungery! Well do you think the cost of livin has gone up on average of 15% under Obamamoa! If they are living just on SSAN ! Then yea there going to be more hungery seniors! Lets see the dollar has lost 49% of it's value under Obamamoa. If the senoirs wanted to work they can't cause there's 23 million other people needing work cause Obamamoa hasn't created a job making economic situation. There taxes have gone up under Obamamoa and will continue to go up as he spends us into oblivian. Maybe if he hadn't wasted 5.4 Trillion dollars we'd be in a better place and the seniors wouldn't be going hungery!:steamed:

Why the Red states?

series1811
10-11-2012, 09:36
Could anybody figure out the methodolgy involved in coming up with those results?

I sure couldn't. How do you quanitize "hunger"?

G29Reload
10-11-2012, 12:11
All Red states.


Red states, on average have more old people in them.

Blue states are too damn expensive to retire in. When 65 comes, people have to start making hard choices and hanging around to get ripped off by high taxes isn't usually one of them.

Just try retiring in CT, or NY or CA if you're not rich. Dare you.

Goaltender66
10-11-2012, 12:17
Odd, I wouldn't consider New Mexico "Red." It's voted D since 1992 (except for 2004, and even then Bush only won by 0.7%) and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 16 points. Why does the OP consider it a Red state, aside from the opinion reinforcing his preferred narrative?

countrygun
10-11-2012, 12:24
Odd, I wouldn't consider New Mexico "Red." It's voted D since 1992 (except for 2004, and even then Bush only won by 0.7%) and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 16 points. Why does the OP consider it a Red state, aside from the opinion reinforcing his preferred narrative?


His question has been answered and he can't face it. The premise is about as solid as a cheese-cloth condom. He has no possibility of useful input.

HEY MUSKIE

Did you know that study shows that the white horses in the circus eat twice as much hay as the black horses?

SCmasterblaster
10-11-2012, 12:25
The link leads to something else now.

rgregoryb
10-11-2012, 12:31
from the Chronicle of Philanthropy

November 28, 2006
Who Gives More: Democrats or Republicans?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 12 noon, U.S. Eastern time
In his new book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Arthur C. Brooks presents research showing that religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals. He says people who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others. Included in his book is an analysis of 15 sets of data that he says all came to the same conclusion.

http://click.infospace.com/ClickHandler.ashx?du=http%3a%2f%2fphilanthropy.com%2farticle%2fWho-Gives-More-Democrats-or%2f49377%2f&ru=http%3a%2f%2fphilanthropy.com%2farticle%2fWho-Gives-More-Democrats-or%2f49377%2f&ld=20121011&ap=10&app=1&c=facemoodsv3.bwr&s=facemoodsv3&coi=239137&cop=main-title&euip=173.186.148.165&npp=10&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=63c1446890c947d6a0d6c3b2af602e9b&ep=10&mid=9&hash=DF3BA1FD8124B03B722BBD27FF6B6500

BuckeyePPC
10-11-2012, 12:41
Deleted .... already mentioned.

ChuteTheMall
10-11-2012, 12:45
What was the 8th state?

:headscratch:

rgregoryb
10-11-2012, 12:46
or the 9th

IvanVic
10-11-2012, 12:47
Red states, on average have more old people in them.


Great point. Unless they adjusted for this, the article/study is worthless.

muscogee
10-11-2012, 13:22
His question has been answered and he can't face it. The premise is about as solid as a cheese-cloth condom. He has no possibility of useful input.

HEY MUSKIE

Did you know that study shows that the white horses in the circus eat twice as much hay as the black horses?

If all you have are ad hominem arguments the you don't have a argument.

countrygun
10-11-2012, 13:28
If all you have are ad hominem arguments the you don't have a argument.
Go back and show me how my posts are all "Ad Hominem"
You are obviously ignoring everything I have said in this thread and that, in and of itself, deserves a certain level of ad hom.

You and your premise in this thread are bogus.

Drilled
10-11-2012, 13:30
Get the crazy liberal actors on it...they can fix anything, just ask them!

series1811
10-11-2012, 14:52
Great point. Unless they adjusted for this, the article/study is worthless.

That's what I was saying. What is their methodology?

How do you define a hunger level?

It's a junk article, with junk statistics.

muscogee
10-11-2012, 22:17
Go back and show me how my posts are all "Ad Hominem"
You are obviously ignoring everything I have said in this thread and that, in and of itself, deserves a certain level of ad hom.

You and your premise in this thread are bogus.

I will continue to ignore them is that's all you have.

series1811
10-12-2012, 07:21
I will continue to ignore them is that's all you have.

If you aren't going to defend your post, what's the point of putting it up?

Sam Spade
10-12-2012, 09:46
I will continue to ignore them is that's all you have.

The "Lalalalalala I can't hear yooooooou" defense.

Yeah, that'll crush the opposition.