Why California is a SHITHOLE

[Wyatt earp]

Here you like stats .....your poor ass illegals Mexicans out number rich ass whites now in California...


It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California




View attachment 171789

Fucking idiot Latinos is not a shorthand for illegal Mexicans.

They are the same thing, don't cry to me I know you are an illegal

Bear let me explain something to you: You don't know much of anything and are too stupid to even suspect your depravity.


Latinos in CA are mostly legals (~13/15 million) and I am an American citizen.

If your an American citizen how many stars our on the flag? Would you deport illegals ?

It is spelled "you're" which is short version of "you are".

And yes dummy I know how many stars are in the flag and even if I wouldn't, I'd just google it. DUH

Would I deport Illegals...if what? If I had a magic wand? No I wouldn't.

What I would do is give illegals that are already here path to citizenship, greatly expand legal immigration quotas and as a final piece of the puzzle put in measures for more effective border and visa enforcement.

It's spelled fuck you, and you don't know how to Google shit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are one arrogant fuck.

Do you think you are smarter that the smartest person in, say, Mississippi?

This should be good.

No because the smartest person in Mississippi isn’t from Mississippi their probably from Harvard or University of Michigan.

Not Mississippi state

Well if University of Michigan alumni so smart why is Detroit a shit hole?

We have big city problems. You guys just send your hick kids to our big cities to get jobs. Where are we going to send our urban kids? The city is where YOUR KIDS come to find work because there is no jobs in your hick town unless they want to work at Cracker Barrell or the Pigly Wiggly or Walmart.

Well that's a fucking lie..why would they go north when they know jobs are in the South at BMW , Volvo and all the rest why do you lie ass hole?

Of all the people working at the bmw plant how many are temp workers?

Eventually you Hicks will organize too.

Uhm you do know Boeing and volkswagon in Tennessee had a vote right..and they said nope to Unions

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are one arrogant fuck.

Do you think you are smarter that the smartest person in, say, Mississippi?

This should be good.

No because the smartest person in Mississippi isn’t from Mississippi their probably from Harvard or University of Michigan.

Not Mississippi state

Well if University of Michigan alumni so smart why is Detroit a shit hole?

We have big city problems. You guys just send your hick kids to our big cities to get jobs. Where are we going to send our urban kids? The city is where YOUR KIDS come to find work because there is no jobs in your hick town unless they want to work at Cracker Barrell or the Pigly Wiggly or Walmart.

BTW what kinda of lying ignoramus fuck head lying tool are you..and why ?

Am I lying?

. Only a retarded thinks southerners moving to Michigan, illionois for no jobs and high cost of living.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Californians are 33% of US on Welfare

Y'all have got to stop consuming propaganda, or if you insist on doing so, at least examine the data that must be used to support such outlandish claims as the onel in this thread's title. Just how ignorant must one be to not realize the title cannot possibly be correct.

• Some ~45M people receive welfare of some sort.
• For Californians to comprise one third of them, ~15M of them would have to be Californians.
• CA has population of ~39.25M.
• Where in the article the OP-er cites is cited the number of Californians who receive welfare? Nowhere. Indeed, reading that article, it's not possible to tell how its authors arrived at the percentages they note, let alone what raw numbers led to their arriving at them.

Even just eyeballing the SNAP Program's recipients by state (click the link), it's obvious that nowhere near one third of the ~45M total SNAP recipients are CA residents. Is there some other form of individual/household federal public assistance CA residents receive that accounts for the remaining ~24% that would be needed to get to the claimed 33%?


As goes welfare assistance by state, the states having the greatest proportion of recipients within any given state's population, as of 2015, the states having the greatest share of residents receiving public assistance were the one's noted below. FWIW, given CA's population of ~39.25M and having ~4M people who receive public assistance, the same measure for CA amounts to ~10%.

6. Louisiana

• Number of food stamp recipients: 877,340
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 18.87%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $108.22 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $23.27

5. West Virginia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 362,501
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 19.59%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $44.71 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.17 per person

4. Tennessee

• Number of food stamp recipients: Just over 1.31 million
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.04%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $161.9 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.72

3. Oregon

• Number of food stamp recipients: 802,190
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.21%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $98.96 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.92 per person

2. New Mexico

• Number of food stamp recipients: 430,622
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.65%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $53.12 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $25.47 per person

1. Mississippi

• Number of food stamp recipients: 656,871
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 21.94%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $81.03 million
• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $27.06 per person

(Source)
​

Unrelated data and analysis that further shows the thread title's and OP-er's linked article's claim all the more preposterous:

• Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid? - Tax Foundation - And this is from the decidedly right-wing Tax Foundation
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

And then there's this:

The American state with the biggest economy is California, which, in 2015, produced $2.44 trillion of economic output. Its GDP compares favourably to that of France, which produced $2.42 trillion during the same period. Particularly interesting to note is the fact that California has 6 million fewer workers than France, yet produced a little over its GDP. This suggests that, in productivity terms, the US outperforms its European cousins.

Even more interesting, if California were inserted into the world ranking by GDP according to country, it would come sixth – ahead of France, India, Italy and Brazil.

But California is not the only state with a strong economy. The US’s second-largest state by economy, Texas, has an output of $1.643 trillion, which sandwiches it between that of Brazil, with $1.64 trillion, and that of neighbouring Canada, at $1.552 trillion. Once again, that’s despite a smaller workforce: Brazil’s workers outnumber those of Texas by round 80 million, and Canada’s workers outnumber Texas’s by 6 million.

New York State came in third, with an output of $1.442 trillion, putting it ahead of South Korea, currently the world’s 11th-largest economy.​

​

(Source)​

Take a good look at that map and ask yourself how much of the U.S. GDP comes from any single so-called "red state" and then check the figures to see how many of them, not including Texas, it would take to equal CA's productivity.

The next time one cares to "rag" on CA, think about how much of CA's GDP go to provide services and protections the rest of the country, for the most part, could not otherwise afford. And yes, I'm talking to you "Macau," Montana, "Uzbekistan," Idaho, "Angola," Mississippi, "Costa Rica," South Dakota, and all the rest of you gun-toting "red-state" jackasses who'd not only look a gift horse in the mouth, but also shot it.

Who gives a shit , give California back to Mexico, tell me how many rich whites will stay , why the cartel Rob's them blind and kills them?

 

[westwall]

You guys keep talking about the localities you think are shitholes like it matters, that it was the places themselves Doddering Donnie was insulting. He was referring specifically to the people from those places.

If you live in a "shithole", you don't deserve to come to America? Since when? Where is that written on the statue of liberty?

How about realizing we are full and do not need any people with no marketable skills coming here to drain us.

So just automatically being from a country Crooked Donnie Small Hands thinks is a "shithole" means you have no "marketable skills"?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Nothing about "marketable skills".

It's a poem written by a young woman-------not a law

It's a standard for us to live up to, a moral obligation. You're okay with failing that standard, obviously.

The problem with the progressives is they have no limit on living up to that phrase. Eventually, to take care of all of those needy people, you have to loot the middle class to pay for them, and then there is no middle class. What then?

 

[gipper]

I have lived in California for eight decades.

I have seen many changes, to say the least.

I do NOT feel that the Golden State is a _____.

I DO feel, however, that California is a harbinger of what the United States of America will eventually become.

Let's hope not. You should start a secession movement. If CA secedes and the criminal central government doesn't kill and destroy to keep you, but let's you go peacefully unlike Dishonest Abe, maybe the Empire will die too.

Win-win for all Americans.

 

[gipper]

You guys keep talking about the localities you think are shitholes like it matters, that it was the places themselves Doddering Donnie was insulting. He was referring specifically to the people from those places.

If you live in a "shithole", you don't deserve to come to America? Since when? Where is that written on the statue of liberty?

How about realizing we are full and do not need any people with no marketable skills coming here to drain us.

So just automatically being from a country Crooked Donnie Small Hands thinks is a "shithole" means you have no "marketable skills"?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Nothing about "marketable skills".

It's a poem written by a young woman-------not a law

It's a standard for us to live up to, a moral obligation. You're okay with failing that standard, obviously.

The problem with the progressives is they have no limit on living up to that phrase. Eventually, to take care of all of those needy people, you have to loot the middle class to pay for them, and then there is no middle class. What then?

What happens then, is a revolution. Hopefully a peaceful one, but we know an all powerful State doesn't like revolutions generally speaking and could resort to murdering millions.

Isn't the State wonderful?

 

[miketx]

Every post the regressives have to smoke and spin.

 

[sealybobo]

No because the smartest person in Mississippi isn’t from Mississippi their probably from Harvard or University of Michigan.

Not Mississippi state

Well if University of Michigan alumni so smart why is Detroit a shit hole?

We have big city problems. You guys just send your hick kids to our big cities to get jobs. Where are we going to send our urban kids? The city is where YOUR KIDS come to find work because there is no jobs in your hick town unless they want to work at Cracker Barrell or the Pigly Wiggly or Walmart.

Well that's a fucking lie..why would they go north when they know jobs are in the South at BMW , Volvo and all the rest why do you lie ass hole?

Of all the people working at the bmw plant how many are temp workers?

Eventually you Hicks will organize too.

Uhm you do know Boeing and volkswagon in Tennessee had a vote right..and they said nope to Unions

Yes they were threatened their jobs would leave

 

[sealybobo]

No because the smartest person in Mississippi isn’t from Mississippi their probably from Harvard or University of Michigan.

Not Mississippi state

Well if University of Michigan alumni so smart why is Detroit a shit hole?

We have big city problems. You guys just send your hick kids to our big cities to get jobs. Where are we going to send our urban kids? The city is where YOUR KIDS come to find work because there is no jobs in your hick town unless they want to work at Cracker Barrell or the Pigly Wiggly or Walmart.

BTW what kinda of lying ignoramus fuck head lying tool are you..and why ?

Am I lying?

. Only a retarded thinks southerners moving to Michigan, illionois for no jobs and high cost of living.

It doesn’t have to be up north. Even your southern cities are more liberal because they deal with the real world.

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

This is the result of liberalism gone wild. No other state should be required to support California by way of taxation.


*****************
Beautiful California has gone from red to deep blue and from rich to poor. In fact, it’s the poorest state in the union. The state is now the poverty capital of America.

The California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments, and other “public welfare” according to Census Bureau.

In an op-ed by Kerry Jackson for the LA Times, the author reports that California, with 12% of the nation’s population, California also has a disproportionate one in three welfare recipients. The generous spending meant to reduce poverty appears to have increased it, she observes.

Why California Is the Poverty Capital of America! It’s About the $958 Billion

Man, you conservatives are so ignorant.

Here is the fact. California is the 9th richest state in the U.S. List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia

The poorest states with the highest poverty rates are all run by republicans.

 

[miketx]

This is the result of liberalism gone wild. No other state should be required to support California by way of taxation.


*****************
Beautiful California has gone from red to deep blue and from rich to poor. In fact, it’s the poorest state in the union. The state is now the poverty capital of America.

The California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments, and other “public welfare” according to Census Bureau.

In an op-ed by Kerry Jackson for the LA Times, the author reports that California, with 12% of the nation’s population, California also has a disproportionate one in three welfare recipients. The generous spending meant to reduce poverty appears to have increased it, she observes.

Why California Is the Poverty Capital of America! It’s About the $958 Billion

Man, you conservatives are so ignorant.

Here is the fact. California is the 9th richest state in the U.S. List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia

The poorest states with the highest poverty rates are all run by republicans.

California ranks second to last on list of best states to make a living in

50 Reasons Why California Sucks | The Hidden Dominion

16 Reasons Not To Live In California

55 Reasons Why California Is The Worst State In America

Here are just a few of the hundreds of links I found. Do what you do best, tell us another lie.

 

[BrokeLoser]

This is the result of liberalism gone wild. No other state should be required to support California by way of taxation.


*****************
Beautiful California has gone from red to deep blue and from rich to poor. In fact, it’s the poorest state in the union. The state is now the poverty capital of America.

The California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments, and other “public welfare” according to Census Bureau.

In an op-ed by Kerry Jackson for the LA Times, the author reports that California, with 12% of the nation’s population, California also has a disproportionate one in three welfare recipients. The generous spending meant to reduce poverty appears to have increased it, she observes.

Why California Is the Poverty Capital of America! It’s About the $958 Billion

Man, you conservatives are so ignorant.

Here is the fact. California is the 9th richest state in the U.S. List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia

The poorest states with the highest poverty rates are all run by republicans.

Hmmm....the Shithole Times thinks otherwise. All you gotta do is pull your head from your ass...the proof is all around you. Who’s ignorant wack?

“Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?”
Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Poverty in California: Recently Released Census Data

 

[Votto]

I started a thread on those in California wanting to form a new state called New California

New California declares 'independence' from California in bid to become 51st state

However, I was told that this was the 20th thread on the issue and closed down. Problem is, I can't find any other threads on it.

To make a long story short, the vast majority of California seems to want to be free of the insanity of San Fran and LA. At least, that is what the map they drew states.

 

[Redfish]

I started a thread on those in California wanting to form a new state called New California

New California declares 'independence' from California in bid to become 51st state

However, I was told that this was the 20th thread on the issue and closed down. Problem is, I can't find any other threads on it.

To make a long story short, the vast majority of California seems to want to be free of the insanity of San Fran and LA. At least, that is what the map they drew states.

the blue area needs a connection to the Mexican border so they can let more illegals in.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Californians are 33% of US on Welfare

Y'all have got to stop consuming propaganda, or if you insist on doing so, at least examine the data that must be used to support such outlandish claims as the onel in this thread's title. Just how ignorant must one be to not realize the title cannot possibly be correct.

• Some ~45M people receive welfare of some sort.
• For Californians to comprise one third of them, ~15M of them would have to be Californians.
• CA has population of ~39.25M.
• Where in the article the OP-er cites is cited the number of Californians who receive welfare? Nowhere. Indeed, reading that article, it's not possible to tell how its authors arrived at the percentages they note, let alone what raw numbers led to their arriving at them.

Even just eyeballing the SNAP Program's recipients by state (click the link), it's obvious that nowhere near one third of the ~45M total SNAP recipients are CA residents. Is there some other form of individual/household federal public assistance CA residents receive that accounts for the remaining ~24% that would be needed to get to the claimed 33%?

You have to drill in a few levels but it is referenced throughout the article.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-258.pdf

Table 4 page 9. California at 20% of its population inpoverty using the Supplemental Poverty Measure and accounting for cost of living.



Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients....​

So it is not 33% of those in poverty, but 33% of those receiving public assistance of some fashion at one level of the government or another.

That is quite different and largely due to California's Open Borders policies and very generous welfare programs.

You have to drill in a few levels but it is referenced throughout the article.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-258.pdf

Table 4 page 9. California at 20% of its population inpoverty using the Supplemental Poverty Measure and accounting for cost of living.

Drilling as instructed, I see the following in the SPM columns of Table 4:

• Total quantity of recipients: ~47.82M
• Total quantity of recipients in CA: ~7.96

The assertion in your thread title (prior to it and another thread being merged into the current thread) is that "Californians are 33% of US on Welfare," and that is the assertion with which I took exception and that I provided data to show is simply not so. Even using the data in Table 4, it's not so: 7.96/48.82 ≈ 0.15, or ~15%, which doesn't rise even to half of 33%.

Additional observations:

As goes the SPM vs. the official poverty figures, why the hell the government has two different published measures for identifying how many people are impoverished is beyond me. Use one or use the other, but there being two is just nuts. Don't get me wrong, I know why there are two: someone or some faction in Congress didn't like the results/figures that the basic (official) measure yielded, so they appropriated funds to have developed a second measure.

So what's the difference between the official and SPM measure? Well, the answer is in the chart on page two of the document you referenced.

• Family as the unit for which poverty is determined: The SPM adds to the standard definition of "family" by including "coresident unrelated children, foster children, unmarried partners and their relatives) or unrelated individuals (who are not otherwise included in the family definition)"
  • By that definition, if I can get enough people to live in my house, the SPM methodology would construe them as part of my family and I could be declared impoverished, and I'm a so-called "one-percenter."
  • That methodology/definition necessarily increases the quantity of impoverished folks in areas having high costs of living and reduces the quantity in places having lower costs of living because the threshold for poverty is calculated as "the mean of expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU) over all two-child consumer units in the 30th to 36th percentile range multiplied by 1.2," and the mean of expenditures varies by geography.

There is another critical difference between the official poverty measure and SPM: the official measure is the one used to determine whether applicants for assistance receive or do not receive it. In contrast, the SPM is merely an alternative measure of poverty. Thus, while the SPM is a measure one can use for all sorts of discussions -- including ones like this one wherein the OP-er's intent is to portray high population and/or high cost of living states in as bad a light as possible -- it is the wrong one to use if anything having to do with one's argument has to do with actual federal public assistance disbursements made to families/individuals. [1]

The impact of the variations in methodology that I noted is readily seen in Table 4. Look at the "Difference" columns on the far right. Doing so, one sees that in high cost states, the difference between the two methodologies is a positive number, and in lower cost states, it's negative.

• These are the 15 cheapest states in America
  
• America: Cost of Living Index by City 2017
  
• Top 10 States With Lowest Cost of Living

What is the dividing line between high and low cost of living as goes that metric's impact on the two results the two poverty measurement methodologies yield? I don't know; I didn't analyze Table 4 to find out from that ange and I don't have the equation the Census Bureau uses to calculate the official and SPM measures (I know what the factors are; I don't know their coefficients), so I cannot solve to find their point of intersection or simply graph them to see it. (Inasmuch as we're talking about quadrant one on the Cartesian plane, I wouldn't expect there to be multiple points of intersection.)


Note:

1. Examining the way benefit eligibility is determined, one finds that "full on" impoverishment is not required to receive federal assistance. People who are "poor enough" given their circumstances can receive something less than the "full" quantity of benefits the federal government makes available.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Drilling as instructed, I see the following in the SPM columns of Table 4:

• Total quantity of recipients: ~47.82M
• Total quantity of recipients in CA: ~7.96

The assertion in your thread title (prior to it and another thread being merged into the current thread) is that "Californians are 33% of US on Welfare," and that is the assertion with which I took exception and that I provided data to show is simply not so. Even using the data in Table 4, it's not so: 7.96/48.82 ≈ 0.15, or ~15%, which doesn't rise even to half of 33%.

You must have speed read over this part of my post.


Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients....


So it is not 33% of those in poverty, but 33% of those receiving public assistance of some fashion at one level of the government or another.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well if University of Michigan alumni so smart why is Detroit a shit hole?

We have big city problems. You guys just send your hick kids to our big cities to get jobs. Where are we going to send our urban kids? The city is where YOUR KIDS come to find work because there is no jobs in your hick town unless they want to work at Cracker Barrell or the Pigly Wiggly or Walmart.

Well that's a fucking lie..why would they go north when they know jobs are in the South at BMW , Volvo and all the rest why do you lie ass hole?

Of all the people working at the bmw plant how many are temp workers?

Eventually you Hicks will organize too.

Uhm you do know Boeing and volkswagon in Tennessee had a vote right..and they said nope to Unions

Yes they were threatened their jobs would leave

Leave to where ? They just spent billions of dollars opening the place as in Boeing's case.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well if University of Michigan alumni so smart why is Detroit a shit hole?

We have big city problems. You guys just send your hick kids to our big cities to get jobs. Where are we going to send our urban kids? The city is where YOUR KIDS come to find work because there is no jobs in your hick town unless they want to work at Cracker Barrell or the Pigly Wiggly or Walmart.

BTW what kinda of lying ignoramus fuck head lying tool are you..and why ?

Am I lying?

. Only a retarded thinks southerners moving to Michigan, illionois for no jobs and high cost of living.

It doesn’t have to be up north. Even your southern cities are more liberal because they deal with the real world.

They not running to the cities when the jobs are coming to them, how out of touch are you with reality anyways?

 

[miketx]

I started a thread on those in California wanting to form a new state called New California

New California declares 'independence' from California in bid to become 51st state

However, I was told that this was the 20th thread on the issue and closed down. Problem is, I can't find any other threads on it.

To make a long story short, the vast majority of California seems to want to be free of the insanity of San Fran and LA. At least, that is what the map they drew states.