Anonymous White House Writer Isn't A Patriot. They're Betraying The Constitution

[Merle 458]

3 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Well the study is about poverty rates not welfare usage. That's your first problem. 

No correlation between poverty and welfare? Back up your claim then. Show me a study that shows country folks get more wefare then city dwellers. I did find this:

https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

[jg121783 3,921]

17 minutes ago, Merle said:

No correlation between poverty and welfare? Back up your claim then. Show me a study that shows country folks get more wefare then city dwellers. I did find this:

https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

I read two interesting things in that article. First of all California residents receive the most welfare and secondly residents of D.C. receive the most food stamps. Both of those areas have large urban populations (D.C. being completely urban obviously) and both of those areas are overwhelmingly liberal. That should put an end to the theory that rural conservative areas receive the most welfare.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

4 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I was born in Baltimore in the 80s... Fun fact lol

 

The drug epidemic in Baltimore wasn't caused by prescription medication. And its so happens rural america has a really high level of disability compared to urban areas. 

Never said it was prescription drug use just inferred there was a huge level of heavy drug use when I lived there, wasn't a dig on Baltimore nor was it a statement of urban areas, it was an observation I made and based on a comment I responded to. There were 2 apartment complexes that were bulldozed and repurposed while I lived there due to rampant drug use. Look up the village of tall trees in Essex Maryland, the name of the second one escapes me

Edited September 9, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[yuna628 9,706]

13 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

I do believe the start of this delightful conversation that rural areas use higher levels of welfare based on percentage of the population receiving benefits it was countered that higher numbers of welfare recipients lived in non rural areas based on # of people receiving benefits. Asked for proof a suspect statistical analysis of drug usage amongst Trump users was given as proof, debated and this is where it landed. 

 

On a side note I lived in Baltimore in the 80s and 90s I don't think you witnessed the same people I ran across, there were far more very strung out people there than my current small town Ohio location

I lived in Baltimore from the 80s onward to the mid 2000s. Back in the 80s I'd say there were many areas of Baltimore in my experience that were perfectly safe to walk, travel, play, shop etc (yes even in the hood). People looked out for each other. The same was also true for areas where my grandma lived in a different part of the city. Open drug use could be found in select areas, but nothing nowhere how it would increase in the 90s. Violent crime also exploded during that time, and gang activity also increased. That being said, after crime became too much and we left to this rural county, I have witnessed things that would blow your mind and that I never saw in Baltimore, even on it's worst days. It's one of the reasons why one particular town in this county is actually ranked as being more violent than Baltimore and has higher drug use statistically. My husband routinely handles conferences for police and state agencies, where they will meet and discuss crime/drug statistics. Drugs are becoming worse in rural America, not just the cities. As people left the cities, the drugs moved where the people did. And this is true for Baltimore as well, crime is bad there, but statistically it's spreading into Baltimore, Howard, and surrounding counties at a high rate (even the beaches have very high crime). This has lulled some more wealthy suburbanites into a false sense of security, and increasingly they are having to face emerging severe crime.

4 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Drugs are extremely political topic.. if it wasn't there wouldn't be a resistance to the legalization of marijuana and drug companies getting subsidies to develope new drugs. 

They are a political topic, but there is no evidence to suggest that a person that votes D has any more chance to be a drug addict than someone who votes R.

4 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I was born in Baltimore in the 80s... Fun fact lol

 

The drug epidemic in Baltimore wasn't caused by prescription medication. And its so happens rural america has a really high level of disability compared to urban areas. 

Opioid drug epidemics didn't cause the Baltimore problem no... but nowadays oxy abuse, fentanyl, and other prescription drugs are exploding into the rural population. We have a lot of heroin addicts here in this rural county... and if people can think of some areas in Baltimore where it would not be safe to drive through.... I could point out just as many places like that here too. Everyone likes to point to Baltimore as being a cesspit... well they should also look at some other places in the state and do something to help.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

4 hours ago, Merle said:

No correlation between poverty and welfare? Back up your claim then. Show me a study that shows country folks get more wefare then city dwellers. I did find this:

https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

I highly recommend Google. 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

3 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

Never said it was prescription drug use just inferred there was a huge level of heavy drug use when I lived there, wasn't a dig on Baltimore nor was it a statement of urban areas, it was an observation I made and based on a comment I responded to. There were 2 apartment complexes that were bulldozed and repurposed while I lived there due to rampant drug use. Look up the village of tall trees in Essex Maryland, the name of the second one escapes me

I've actually heard a lot of similar experiences from my family.  It absolutely destroyed communities. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I highly recommend Google. 

The census bureau disagrees with your theory.

 

”Among the states, 42 had higher poverty rates among people living in urban areas than those living in rural areas.”

 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/12/a_comparison_of_rura.html

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I lived in Baltimore from the 80s onward to the mid 2000s. Back in the 80s I'd say there were many areas of Baltimore in my experience that were perfectly safe to walk, travel, play, shop etc (yes even in the hood). People looked out for each other. The same was also true for areas where my grandma lived in a different part of the city. Open drug use could be found in select areas, but nothing nowhere how it would increase in the 90s. Violent crime also exploded during that time, and gang activity also increased. That being said, after crime became too much and we left to this rural county, I have witnessed things that would blow your mind and that I never saw in Baltimore, even on it's worst days. It's one of the reasons why one particular town in this county is actually ranked as being more violent than Baltimore and has higher drug use statistically. My husband routinely handles conferences for police and state agencies, where they will meet and discuss crime/drug statistics. Drugs are becoming worse in rural America, not just the cities. As people left the cities, the drugs moved where the people did. And this is true for Baltimore as well, crime is bad there, but statistically it's spreading into Baltimore, Howard, and surrounding counties at a high rate (even the beaches have very high crime). This has lulled some more wealthy suburbanites into a false sense of security, and increasingly they are having to face emerging severe crime.

They are a political topic, but there is no evidence to suggest that a person that votes D has any more chance to be a drug addict than someone who votes R.

Opioid drug epidemics didn't cause the Baltimore problem no... but nowadays oxy abuse, fentanyl, and other prescription drugs are exploding into the rural population. We have a lot of heroin addicts here in this rural county... and if people can think of some areas in Baltimore where it would not be safe to drive through.... I could point out just as many places like that here too. Everyone likes to point to Baltimore as being a cesspit... well they should also look at some other places in the state and do something to help.

That's funny.. I consider myself to have two homes.. Detroit and Baltimore.. both are considered dangerous by people who have never even visited the cities. 

 

I understand that the opioid crisis is pretty wide spread... But I'm just simply stating a fact that rural America is being hit the hardest... 

 

Growing up in Michigan (07ish) vikes and xannies were really popular. I had no idea that it would lead to so much heroin, just 10 min south of where I live. 

 

http://www.monroenews.com/news/20171122/monroe-county-to-sue-drug-companies-regarding-opioid-crisis

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

That's funny.. I consider myself to have two homes.. Detroit and Baltimore.. both are considered dangerous by people who have never even visited the cities.

 

I understand that the opioid crisis is pretty wide spread... But I'm just simply stating a fact that rural America is being hit the hardest... 

 

Growing up in Michigan (07ish) vikes and xannies were really popular. I had no idea that it would lead to so much heroin, just 10 min south of where I live. 

 

http://www.monroenews.com/news/20171122/monroe-county-to-sue-drug-companies-regarding-opioid-crisis

To put it more accurately... both are considered dangerous by law enforcement, courts, lawyers, and America in general.  Detroit is the #1 city for violent crime for the 4th year in a row.  Roughly five times the violent crime rate of the rest of America.  So it’s not just “considered dangerous by people who have never even visited the city”... it simply IS dangerous.

Downtown Detroit is nice.  But some of the areas around it, I would not drive thru after dark.  Heck, even during the daytime, it felt scary to be in.  But I am sure that living there, one becomes immune to the dangers and learns to think it is “just normal”.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

What's there to discuss... I posted pretty legit .edu sources.. I'm not an expert  in the subject. 

I've never lived in a rural area,  unless you consider Bowling Green ohio in the 90s rural. 

 

It's no secret that in every country and culture.. young people are moving away from farm life to pursue other opportunities. I don't really get how you can argue against this. 

You seem to have missed that I was agreeing with the idea that youth will leave the rural areas (though it has little to do with farming).  And while there is SOME truth to there being more opportunities in the city centers, which is what those youts will see, it comes at a premium.  They won’t see the increased costs associated with that life typically, and will end up either not knowing any better, or will just become accustomed to the lifestyle they become trapped in.

I have a friend who lives in Newark.  We both make the same hourly wage.  But in doing comparisons on things like taxes, food, taxes, utilities, etc... I come out about $20,000 ahead of him annually.  But he refuses to move to a cheaper location.  Cites family as one major reason, but he has family all over.  I personally think it’s fear of the unknown, or perhaps just becoming comfortable in his particular misery.

However, choices abound.  Smart people will not just move to where the higher salaries are, but also examine all aspects of what it costs to live in a particular area.  Disposable income is much more important than the promise of a large salary.

[jb914 33]

New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago are all in the top 20 safest major cities in the world, according to a 2015 ranking by the economist: https://web.archive.org/web/20150227212313/http://safecities.economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EIU_Safe_Cities_Index_2015_white_paper-1.pdf

 

I agree that tax rate for very high wage earners in NYC approaches the absurd, and the MTA/subway has some serious issues right now. Housings costs are insane, because there is so much wealth pursuing a limited housing stock. Politicians both Red and Blue are usually in bed with rapacious unions and/or public contractors, so there is little chance of cutting spending.

 

But it certainly is not overridden with crime. The murder rate in 2017 was the lowest since World War II, almost 90% lower than 1980's during the crack epidemic.

 

As far as whether Red or Blue states receive more Federal Money than they pay into the system, there is not much of a contest, the most dependent states are nearly all GOP, and the states that pay more than they receive are mostly Blue : https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

 

Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820. California residents paid an average of $10,510.

 

At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665.

 

Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

 

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.

 

https://www.apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

Edited September 10, 2018 by jb914

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, jb914 said:

New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago are all in the top 20 safest major cities in the world, according to a 2015 ranking by the economist:  https://web.archive.org/web/20150227212313/http://safecities.economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EIU_Safe_Cities_Index_2015_white_paper-1.pdf

 

I agree that tax rate for very high wage earners in NYC approaches the absurd, and the MTA/subway has some serious issues right now. Housings costs are insane, because there is so much wealth pursuing a limited housing stock. Politicians both Red and Blue are usually in bed with rapacious unions and/or public contractors, so there is little chance of cutting spending.

 

But it certainly is not overridden with crime. The murder rate in 2017 was the lowest since World War II, almost 90% lower than 1980's during the crack epidemic.

 

As far as whether Red or Blue states receive more Federal Money than they pay into the system, there is not much of a contest, the most dependent states are nearly all GOP, and the states that pay more than they receive are mostly Blue : https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

 

Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820. California residents paid an average of $10,510.

 

At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665.

 

Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

 

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.

 

https://www.apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

I can’t believe you typed that first sentence with a straight face.  Chicago?  NYC?  Not even.  Not in the top 33 in the US:  https://www.businessinsider.com/safest-cities-america-us-2017-8#1-naperville-illinois-33 

Not in this listing, either:  https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/safest-cities/

[TBoneTX 46,041]

I was wondering about that, too.

[Diane and Chris 651]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:07 AM, Bill & Katya said:

There has been a lot of dysfunction in the WH for a long time, but Trump still appears to be accomplishing things for the better.  I tend to agree with several pundits (mostly MDL types) that this will not be a senior WH official, but rather a low level functionary given the NYTimes track record with anonymous sources.

 

Btw, if an anonymous source showed up at the NYTimes with a similar piece of a Democrat president, would they print it?

Highly unlikely!  

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

17 hours ago, Satisfied said:

You seem to have missed that I was agreeing with the idea that youth will leave the rural areas (though it has little to do with farming).  And while there is SOME truth to there being more opportunities in the city centers, which is what those youts will see, it comes at a premium.  They won’t see the increased costs associated with that life typically, and will end up either not knowing any better, or will just become accustomed to the lifestyle they become trapped in.

I have a friend who lives in Newark.  We both make the same hourly wage.  But in doing comparisons on things like taxes, food, taxes, utilities, etc... I come out about $20,000 ahead of him annually.  But he refuses to move to a cheaper location.  Cites family as one major reason, but he has family all over.  I personally think it’s fear of the unknown, or perhaps just becoming comfortable in his particular misery.

However, choices abound.  Smart people will not just move to where the higher salaries are, but also examine all aspects of what it costs to live in a particular area.  Disposable income is much more important than the promise of a large salary.

 Yes you are right..there are different challenges associated with city living. A smart person should take these in account.

 

But then again.. what's wrong with being dumb , taking risks, failing/succeeding? 

 

If I grew up in a rural town all my life I would be dying to get to the big city. Experience other things, people, places. If it doesn't turn out how I wanted, well that's life.

And the best things in life are stuck behind a wall of uncertainty.