More red state Idiocy

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

because most deaths are justified, and the ones that aren’t self defense are mostly good faith mistakes, which is t murder. . i’m sure there were murders that went unpunished, but very few

do you ever consider the other point of view? the cop, who didn’t ask to be put into a life or death situation where they have to make a decision in a fraction of a second. There will be tragedies. no way to avoid it. we need to mimimize it, but there’s a reality to accept.

and for sure, it’s not always about race.

You’re wrong

“One of the facts seared into my head is that when Derek Chauvin was convicted for murdering George Floyd, he was only the 7th cop to be convicted of murder since 2005, out of the 15,000 police killings in those 16 years.”

It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short.

As far as dangerous jobs, Police officers are not even in the top twenty for fatal otj incidents.

Wonder why cops are taught to yell “stop resisting” and “drop your weapon” after firing a gun, because bystanders will remember they said it and their memory will automatically reverse the order of the events to make it make sense. Their testimony will support cops, because of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re wrong

“One of the facts seared into my head is that when Derek Chauvin was convicted for murdering George Floyd, he was only the 7th cop to be convicted of murder since 2005, out of the 15,000 police killings in those 16 years.”

It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short.

As far as dangerous jobs, Police officers are not even in the top twenty for fatal otj incidents.

Wonder why cops are taught to yell “stop resisting” and “drop your weapon” after firing a gun, because bystanders will remember they said it and their memory will automatically reverse the order of the events to make it make sense. Their testimony will support cops, because of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say “without police fault”. in fact, i said no doubt some
murders were overlooked. n

what’s wrong with you? if i say “some
murders went unpunished”, how can you accuse me of saying the police are never wrong?

you’re either unbelievably stupid, or unbelievably dishonest. my money is on dishonest. there’s nothing you won’t say, nothing you won’t accuse me of saying.

You’re a pathological liar, you can’t stop. you’re like trump.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i didn’t say “without police fault”. in fact, i said no doubt some
murders were overlooked. n

what’s wrong with you? if i say “some
murders went unpunished”, how can you accuse me of saying the police are never wrong?

you’re either unbelievably stupid, or unbelievably dishonest. my money is on dishonest. there’s nothing you won’t say, nothing you won’t accuse me of saying.

You’re a pathological liar, you can’t stop. you’re like trump.

Poor victim, accusing me of saying that you said the police are never wrong, you're always kinda sorta saying things like "Because most" it's baloney and means nothing.

As I said "It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short."

There's been no change in police behavior, if anything it's gotten worse.
Police have gotten more militant and look more like an army than ever.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Poor victim, accusing me of saying that you said the police are never wrong, you're always kinda sorta saying things like "Because most" it's baloney and means nothing.

As I said "It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short."

There's been no change in police behavior, if anything it's gotten worse.
Police have gotten more militant and look more like an army than ever.

you’re a lunatic.


on this issue, the data is crystal crystal clear. probably 700,000 cops, god knows how many millions and millions of interactions between them and citizens in a year. and a dozen or so times out of those millions, there’s a tragedy. that’s not systemic anything. it’s barely a rounding error.

but hey, democrats can either distort that, or talk about slaughtering the unborn, or any it’s a great idea for men and little girls to share bathrooms. so i get why they want to talk about their warped, distorted take on this issue.

i’m reacting to what the data actually is. you’re reacting to what you wish the data was.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re a lunatic.


on this issue, the data is crystal crystal clear. probably 700,000 cops, god knows how many millions and millions of interactions between them and citizens in a year. and a dozen or so times out of those millions, there’s a tragedy. that’s not systemic anything. it’s barely a rounding error.

but hey, democrats can either distort that, or talk about slaughtering the unborn, or any it’s a great idea for men and little girls to share bathrooms. so i get why they want to talk about their warped, distorted take on this issue.

i’m reacting to what the data actually is. you’re reacting to what you wish the data was.

Jim
Show the data then, it only exists in your imagination.

No government agency even started collecting that information till 2019 and what has been collected “does not assess or report whether officers followed their department’s policy or acted lawfully.”

National Use-of-Force Data Collection
The FBI created the National Use of Force Data Collection in 2015, in partnership with law enforcement agencies, to provide nationwide statistics on law enforcement use-of-force incidents.

The FBI began collecting this data from law enforcement agencies on January 1, 2019. The most recent data is available on the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer website.

The data collection Includes:

National-level statistics on law enforcement use-of-force incidents
Basic information on the circumstances, subjects, and officers involved
The National Use-of-Force Data Collection offers big-picture insights, rather than information on specific incidents. The collection does not assess or report whether officers followed their department’s policy or acted lawfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

pete, here the washington post says 14 unarmed
blacks were killed by police in all of 2019.

spin that into an epidemic. good luck. you got any data to suggest there’s an actual epidemic of racist assassinations at the hands of white cops? or are you lying as usual?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...race-injustice

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete, here the washington post says 14 unarmed
blacks were killed by police in all of 2019.

spin that into an epidemic. good luck. you got any data to suggest there’s an actual epidemic of racist assassinations at the hands of white cops? or are you lying as usual?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...race-injustice

You’re the only one making this a racist cop issue
That’s not the Washington Post, it’s the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank that’s been criticized numerous times for its sloppy self serving reports.

Show the data “or else we know you’re lying”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re the only one making this a racist cop issue
That’s not the Washington Post, it’s the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank that’s been criticized numerous times for its sloppy self serving reports.

Show the data “or else we know you’re lying”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you. ritocozed me for saying police deserve no criticism, which i never came close to saying. You’re saying i’m the only one making this a racist cop issue? the left doesn’t have a field day making this a racist cop issue time after time? really?

It must be exhausting/frustrating when the data so often spits in the face of the narrative you’re enslaved by.

[wdmso]

Jordan, R-Ohio, pointed to the "disparagement" of law enforcement overstressing police forces across America.

"We're not getting enough good people applying because of the disparagement on police officers," Jordan told NBC's "Meet the Press." Gym a lying seditious scumbag who should be on trial like the foot soldiers already charged and convicted


police are the victims FYI most people don’t want to be cop because the hours and shift work blows and the pays poor unless you’re in a big city or a state trooper in the NE
See article below


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

Statistics don’t lie

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,060 civilians having been shot, 220 of whom were Black, as of December 20, 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,020 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and December 2022.

now here comes what’s called 13/50 argument

The “13/50” argument is an overused and under-analyzed conservative talking point, one that unfortunately aids in perpetuating lies about the black community and in casting an unfounded presumption of guilt onto black people. The argument proposes that while black people make up only 13 percent of the population of the United States, we commit 50 percent of all known crime. Occasionally, the 50 percent statistic will vary, sometimes only referring to murder or more broadly to violent crime. Nonetheless, because this argument lacks truly concrete evidence

[wdmso]

I posted the entire article because Gym Jordan lies as easily as he breathes

Question for Jim are you against police unions. Seeing your an anti union guy?

A letter to the American public: 3 common misconceptions about pay and rural policing Wanting equitable wages for rural cops is not about greed or ingratitude, it’s just economics

Every news cycle brings competing headlines: should we defund cops, or pay them more to halt the exodus of experienced officers? While big papers cover big cities, I’m here to remind the reader that rural police officers and police agencies aren’t exempt from the influence of inflation and market pressures. The same financial pressures that translate into problems with retention make an already-difficult field an even harder sell for recruiting.

In that case, what do West Virginia, Oklahoma, Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia have in common? They all have bills pending to increase pay for (mostly state) law enforcement officers. While some of the raises are substantial, the effects on officer salary would be modest, partly because starting pay is so low now, and partly because it’s been a long time since the last pay boost. In Oklahoma, it would be the first raise troopers have seen in seven years.

Proposed pay increases for state troopers – many of whom live and patrol in relatively remote locations – are a concern for local agencies, which lose seasoned officers when nearby departments pay higher salaries. In response, a group of Arizona legislators drafted a bill that stipulates starting pay for deputy sheriffs cannot be more than 5% below the average salaries of the two top-paying law enforcement agencies in the county. Whether it passes or not, that lawmakers saw a need for such a bill raises a question: what assumptions are standing in the way of paying officers fairly (enough to keep them loyal and working hard) no matter where they work?

Since I write about small, rural and remote agencies, let’s answer that by addressing three common misconceptions about pay and rural policing.

1. POLICE WORK IS A CALLING SO COPS WHO WORRY ABOUT PAY ARE IN IT FOR THE WRONG REASONS

It may be a calling, but most cops are not volunteers with lucrative day jobs. Having bills to pay and families to support does not negate a sense of mission, or mean that officers who want decent compensation are greedy. It means they’re normal humans, with a sense of responsibility for their families and personal obligations, as well as their communities.

Wanting to be able to participate in recreation is healthy and helps to manage stress, but even camping costs money. Wanting to be able to pay off debts, build up savings and provide for a child’s education is responsible, not mercenary. Wanting to rent or buy a house in a safe neighborhood is sensible, not pretentious.

Problems created by extremely low pay in law enforcement came under much-deserved scrutiny after the investigations in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, but the problems didn’t go away. Simplistic search results of national averages for police pay camouflage the very low pay factoring into a mean of about $60,000 a year. There are still plenty of places – hundreds, if not thousands of agencies – where officers are paid in the low 30s each year.

2. IT COSTS LESS TO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS, SO LOW PAY IS FINE

This one is simple: in a lot of rural places, it’s really expensive to live. Rural and remote policing takes place in and near tourist destinations like national parks, coastlines and ski resorts. Rural cops work in vast ranchlands, mountains and deserts that have become trendy rich-people playgrounds, driving up prices for buyers and renters. In many western states, where distances are huge and geography is hostile, there simply may not be housing as urban dwellers know it, affordable or otherwise. Rising rents and lack of availability force officers into commutes that devour ever-larger shares of their household budgets.

[RELATED: When housing costs hinder hiring]

In one example, Park County, Colorado covers more than 2,000 square miles, with only about 18,000 residents. The sheriff needs 18 deputies; he has eight. A recent pay hike increased deputy starting pay to $48,000 per year but the average house in Park County costs close to $600,000, and there is nearly no multi-family housing. Chiefs and sheriffs in Colorado and Idaho are cutting overnight patrols, launching fundraisers for basic equipment like ballistic vests, and going to war with their county or city administrations over inadequate budgets. Those constraints overflow into lagging pay for officers, with few adjustments for cost of living, let alone raises.

Small increases are promptly consumed by higher employee costs for healthcare coverage and retirement contributions. Smaller employee pools and fewer providers drive up insurance premiums, keeping officers from ever seeing an actual increase on the pay stub. The more remote the place, the more expensive are groceries, car repairs, gas prices and medical care. Smaller towns also make it harder to find jobs for spouses and to find child care when the jobs are available.

3. THE BENEFITS MAKE UP FOR THE PAY, THOUGH

While that was probably true once, it’s not anymore.

Until the past 30 years, law enforcement was considered a stable, if not high-dollar career path with a brass ring at the end in the form of a modest but dignified retirement. Healthcare was a given. Now healthcare as a benefit still technically exists, but the costs of premiums fall more and more on the officer rather than the employer. Once upon a time, healthcare benefits that covered the officer and dependents were a given; now it is common for only the employee to be covered. Coverage for dependents is “available” with the premium deducted from payroll, sometimes subsidized by the agency, but often at full price. When that is the case, dependents may be barred from shopping on the ACA market for more affordable options because, technically, they already “have insurance available.”

And retirements? Those still exist, but they’re not the Golden Parachute the public thinks they are. Even in a solid defined-benefit system, they pay only a percentage of base pay; the lower the base pay, the lower will be the pension, and many law enforcement officers are not eligible to participate in Social Security.

Some states are experimenting with hybrid or defined-contribution (401K style) retirement plans as cost-cutting measures, and the change is negatively affecting retention. As recruiting lags and seasoned officers leave, taking institutional knowledge with them, Alaska and Kentucky are reworking their retirement plans. What they lose outweighs the savings. Likewise, Utah cut its retirement percentage to a meager 35% of base pay after 25 years, instead of the previous 50% at 20 years. The state’s first responder agencies have paid the price in turnover, as burned-out and disappointed workers left for other states or other fields. Like Kentucky and Alaska, Utah’s legislators are backtracking, hoping to stem the hemorrhage.

IT’S NOT GREED OR INGRATITUDE, IT’S JUST ECONOMICS

Law enforcement as a profession differs from urban to rural areas only in scale; in all settings, the job has become more complex. Training and education requirements are higher, and there are increasingly fraught interactions with the public at very high legal and social stakes. It’s no longer a career field where a high school graduate can learn on the job and make a solid middle-class living.

Instead, we’re getting a real-time economics lesson in compensating wage differentials: jobs that are unpleasant, that require higher skill levels, or that are dangerous, require higher levels of pay to attract enough people to do the jobs. It really is that simple. Officers in lower-paying localities, with marginal benefits and variable leadership, can read headlines announcing Target’s new starting pay and wonder if they are making a wise choice. When Walmart raises starting pay for truck drivers to $110,000 per year, it’s easy to see how a job requiring a gun, a Kevlar vest and the possibility of getting prosecuted for a mistake might seem less attractive than it used to be. There may not be Target stores in the country, but truck drivers can live there if they want to.

Market pressures are squeezing current officers and applicants alike. The need to adjust pay scales arises from “a failure of consideration” – in other words, what was once an acceptable level of compensation has so decreased in value that officers simply are no longer willing to do the work for the same rate of pay. In fact, they can’t, and they’re voting with their feet.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jordan, R-Ohio, pointed to the "disparagement" of law enforcement overstressing police forces across America.

"We're not getting enough good people applying because of the disparagement on police officers," Jordan told NBC's "Meet the Press." Gym a lying seditious scumbag who should be on trial like the foot soldiers already charged and convicted


police are the victims FYI most people don’t want to be cop because the hours and shift work blows and the pays poor unless you’re in a big city or a state trooper in the NE
See article below


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

Statistics don’t lie

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,060 civilians having been shot, 220 of whom were Black, as of December 20, 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,020 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and December 2022.

now here comes what’s called 13/50 argument

The “13/50” argument is an overused and under-analyzed conservative talking point, one that unfortunately aids in perpetuating lies about the black community and in casting an unfounded presumption of guilt onto black people. The argument proposes that while black people make up only 13 percent of the population of the United States, we commit 50 percent of all known crime. Occasionally, the 50 percent statistic will vary, sometimes only referring to murder or more broadly to violent crime. Nonetheless, because this argument lacks truly concrete evidence

If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

Well as usual what you’re claiming is sorta kinda true, but misses whats happened in black communities since the beginning of the war on drugs.
There’s a reason blacks are imprisoned at 5 times the rate of whites and it has become a self propagating mechanism.

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, prosecutorial practices, and legislation resulted in Black people being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a couple packs of sugar — was, for sentencing purposes, deemed the equivalent of 500 grams of powder cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed larger numbers of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests nonetheless came from Black communities who were disproportionately impacted by the facially neutral, yet illogically harsh, crack penalties.
Far easier targets to arrest and convict.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

Every time I point our where you're wrong, I'm either moving the goal post of engaging in false equivalence.

Earth to Wayne...there isn't a huge amount of violent crime in leafy, upper middle class suburbs. That's why comparing rates at which blacks die by cop to their makeup of the general population, means absolutely nothing. Cops on Nantucket don't routinely find themselves in life or death situations with guns drawn. So you exclude the outliers.

In another thread, you mentioned you aren't a biblical scholar (big shock), Add to that list, that you're not a statistics scholar either.

Wayne, what's the rate at which blacks are murdered in general (not just by cops), compared to their makeup of the general population? It's also much higher. Yet most blacks are murdered by other blacks. Is that because of white racists? Or is it because of socioeconomics?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...lice-shootings

From the Manhattan institute...

"these data and studies rebut the most extreme accusations of racial bias, in which police officers are thought to be killing nonthreatening black men with astounding frequency"

Cops don't shoot people at random, uniformly across the country. It's something that's mostly concentrated in the big cities, so that's the universe you look at.

Chapter 1 of any statistics book.

Of course there are racist cops to be rooted out. But there's nohting even close to an epidemic of police killing of blacks.

[Jim in CT]

Wayne, if you took all the black kids struggling in the cities, doomed for poverty and violence, please tell me which of the following two things would help them more? Which would lead to more of them climbing out of poverty?

(1) giving them white skin, or,

(2) giving them 2 parents who love each other and their kids, who are deeply committed to ensuring their kids have a good future, who read to their kids every single day and are involved with keeping tabs on their education?

Which would be more valuable?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So you exclude the outliers.
.

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

Suck my #^&#^&#^&#^& you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing POS

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Suck my #^&#^&#^&#^& you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing POS

the truth hurts i see.

for the 12th time, please point me to a nice CT town that has similar tax costs to what can be enjoyed in some of the towns in NC, NH, FL?

answer: there are none. Zip.

that doesn’t mean all of TN is nicer than all of CT. It does mean there are places in southern states where you get more for your dollar. America is realizing that, and the data speaks for itself.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the truth hurts i see.That is not lying.

for the 12th time, please point me to a nice CT town that has similar tax costs to what can be enjoyed in some of the towns in NC, NH, FL?

answer: there are none. Zip.

that doesn’t mean all of TN is nicer than all of CT. It does mean there are images in southern states where you get more for your dollar. America is realizing that, and the data speaks for itself.

I never said you said TN was better as we all know it is a crappy state.

You constantly point out the outlier. I could care less about the outlier. I'm more concerned about the states as a whole.

As I said the way you talk to people shows what a POS you are and shows why there is not one person here you are friends with who will call you up to do anything. You can say Kevin is your friend but is he really? You are toxic.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I never said you said TN was better as we all know it is a crappy state.

You constantly point out the outlier. I could care less about the outlier. I'm more concerned about the states as a whole.

As I said the way you talk to people shows what a POS you are. You are toxic.

you’re more do concerned about the state as a whole. sure. so you put zero thought into which town in CT you’d live in.

in any event, america clearly doesn’t share that logic. that’s why they’re moving in huge numbers to states that, as a whole aren’t better than CT, but have specific places that are as nice as CT at a lower cost.

My brother lives in Franklin TN. He doesn’t care that Memphis is a mess. Just because it’s in the same state?

Americans want what the best of CT has to offer, but they don’t want to horribly overpay for it. Turns out they don’t have to.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you. ritocozed me for saying police deserve no criticism, which i never came close to saying. You’re saying i’m the only one making this a racist cop issue? the left doesn’t have a field day making this a racist cop issue time after time? really?

It must be exhausting/frustrating when the data so often spits in the face of the narrative you’re enslaved by.

Obviously you’re lying again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re more do concerned about the state as a whole. sure. so you put zero thought into which town in CT you’d live in.
Sorry don't understand that gibberish - isn't that the word you use when you're showing your low class
and trying to insult people?
in any event, america clearly doesn’t share that logic. that’s why they’re moving in huge numbers to states that, as a whole aren’t better than CT, but have specific places that are as nice as CT at a lower cost. I live in a great town. I do care about the state as a whole. It shows my compassion and empathy for others less fortunate as myself. It also demonstrates the Repub. (lack of empathy).

My brother lives in Franklin TN. He doesn’t care that Memphis is a mess. Just because it’s in the same state?

Americans want what the best of CT has to offer, but they don’t want to horribly overpay for it. Turns out they don’t have to.

Using Frankling TN as an arguement is using out an outlier- which you said earlier (when you went off the handle - keep the guns away from angry Jim!) should be disgarded. We have stats for 350M. people which show D run states are richer and healthier and R run states are poorer and less healthy. Pretty compelling evidence.

And your whole arguement was proven wrong when I posted stats showing migration to Fl. hasn't changed over the last 50 years or so. Approximately 850 per day. No difference between when Rs where gov or when Ds were governing. How many times have you posted that argument yet it was proven 100% wrong?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Using Frankling TN as an arguement is using out an outlier- which you said earlier (when you went off the handle - keep the guns away from angry Jim!) should be disgarded. We have stats for 350M. people which show D run states are richer and healthier and R run states are poorer and less healthy. Pretty compelling evidence.

And your whole arguement was proven wrong when I posted stats showing migration to Fl. hasn't changed over the last 50 years or so. Approximately 850 per day. No difference between when Rs where gov or when Ds were governing. How many times have you posted that argument yet it was proven 100% wrong?

So I've asked you 10 times now, why there aren't any similar outliers in CT (towns with high quality of life and very low taxes), and not once have you come close to answering. Those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states.

The fact that FL has always had migration, doesn't even come close to refuting my point. Just because my grandparents retired there doesn't mean I'm going to retire there. There has to be something about the state that makes me want to move there.

When FL had democrat governors, they didn't implement a big state income tax (like they did in CT). It was still a conservative state, it's never been considered a blue state.

When people decide to move to one state or another, I don't think they put a lot of emphasis on how bad the cities are, unless that city is very close to where they want to live. Memphis, TN is a sh*thole. That hasn't stopped Franklin from becoming a BOOMING suburb. Same with FL, NC, NH. If a state has beautiful and low cost suburbs, most people won't be scared away if that state also has gross cities an hour away. I doubt there's a state in the country that doesn't have some awful cities within. CT has Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury. You seen those places lately? I have.

You're not holding any cards in this game. None. As blue states lose population, not only do they lose tax revenue (which is hurting CT), they also lose congressional seats, and thus electoral votes.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So I've asked you 10 times now, why there aren't any similar outliers (towns with high quality of life and very low taxes), and not once have you come close to answering. Those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. No they're not. R governor press release "Look we admit our state sucks as a whole but we have outliers that are great. We keep statewide taxes low so if you have a good income you can move to an outlier town and send your kids to good private schools and not have to worry about those "others" who can't lift themselves up by their bootstraps"

The fact that FL has always had migration, doesn't even come close to refuting my point. Just because my grandparents retired there doesn't mean I'm going to retire there. There has to be something about the state that makes me want to move there. So show us the stats that say 850 a day are moving there bc of Rs policies? You have never done that and can't, yet have touted that fact repeatedly until I destroyed that arguement.

When FL had democrat governors, they didn't implement a big state income tax (like they did in CT). It was still a conservative state, it's never been considered a blue state.

When people decide to move to one state or another, I don't think they put a lot of emphasis on how bad the cities are, unless that city is very close to where they want to live. Memphis, TN is a sh*thole. That hasn't stopped Franklin from becoming a BOOMING suburb. Outlier - look at your first year actuarial book as you stated earlier bc it seems like you don't know what that word means Same with FL, NC, NH. If a state has beautiful and lo cost suburbs, most people won't be scared away if that state also has gross cities an hour away. CT has Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven. You seen those places lately?

Cities are where poor people live and if someone increases their income, they move out. They live their bc of better access to transportation, social servicers, etc. - the things that poor people need. You haven't figured that out yet?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Cities are where poor people live and if someone increases their income, they move out. They live their bc of better access to transportation, social servicers, etc. - the things that poor people need. You haven't figured that out yet?

so you deny that those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. But that’s precisely where people are moving in big numbers. so how can not be their value proposition?

Youre denying facts that you dont like.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so you deny that those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. But that’s precisely where people are moving in big numbers. so how can not be their value proposition?

Youre denying facts that you dont like.

I never denied the fact that 850 people a day are moving to Florida. I just showed you that 850 people a day have been moving to Florida for years regardless of what party was in control. You haven't been able to show that they are moving to Florida bc of Desantis' policies but have been claiming that. I have never claimed that the 160 cities are better than the 225? cities in Fl or Tenn, etc. Just that overall Conn. is richer, healthier, etc than those states.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I never denied the fact that 850 people a day are moving to Florida. I just showed you that 850 people a day have been moving to Florida for years regardless of what party was in control. You haven't been able to show that they are moving to Florida bc of Desantis' policies but have been claiming that.

You denied that having lost cost suburbs with a high quality of life, is a value proposition of red states. But that's where the people are moving to in big numbers, which is proof that people do think that's the value proposition.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You denied that having lost cost suburbs with a high quality of life, is a value proposition of red states. But that's where the people are moving to in big numbers, which is proof that people do think that's the value proposition.

So the "value proposition" is as follows:

Move to the outliers towns where there is a good quality of life if you have enough money but if you don't have enough money, you are out of luck and we really don't care about you enough to raise our taxes to try improving your life.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So the "value proposition" is as follows:

Move to the outliers towns where there is a good quality of life if you have enough money but if you don't have enough money, you are out of luck and we really don't care about you enough to raise our taxes to try improving your life.

"if you have enough money"

What you failed to admit, is that the required amount of money to enjoy those towns is far less than what's required to enjoy the suburbs of CT, which is the obvious (to everyone except you), entire point.

"raise our taxes to try improving your life."

Funny, one of the many questions you keep dodging is this one...what am I getting from the state of CT for my taxes, that I wouldn't get in NH if I moved there?

I keep asking that, you keep dodging.

If higher taxes were the reason for a higher quality of living, people wouldn't be fleeing high tax states. This is the point. People are realizing that you don't get anything for those exorbitant taxes here in CT, unless you're a public unionized employee. Most aren't.

Paul, I immediately concede there are statistics that are much more favorable to CT than for FL or TN - average education, health, life expectancy. That's obviously true. Impossible to deny. What is easy to deny, is that the state is the reason why. If you moved to FL, why would anyone believe that you'd suddenly become fat, lazy, stupid? People decide these things for themselves, the state government isn't your mother. Liberals push that nonsense to justify the taxes. America is waking up to the reality that it's not true.

You have to be pretty wealthy to enjoy CT, and CT has an awful lot to offer wealthy people. So wealthy people will want to live here and stay here. That doesn't mean the state made them wealthy. Catering to wealthy people, and making people wealthy, are very different things.

There's a big, big difference between correlation and causation.