For Tom... Benghazi...

[Paul65k]

Sorry bro... Gotta sig it...

Damn....beat me to it

 

[squeezer]

Squeezer....just to be clear the flaw is not in your math but in your thesis.......$ paid out in comparison to $ in revenue per person.......the reality is that the politicians are really only worried about votes so the more accurate representation of why we are swinging left has to do with percentage of folks on "The Dole" as a percentage of the population because in reality the only reason Congress (both sides of the aisle) do anything is for votes.....we have all agreed to agree on this one already on this forum.

The liberal side of the aisle continues to gain support as more of their voter base gets on "the Dole", the Republicans by contrast are doing the same thing but in bigger chunks to a smaller group of people......which is why they are losing because they pimp themselves out to a much smaller number of voters albeit paying more $ into the coffers. The Democrats alternately are strategically portioning it back out in much smaller chunks but in the process they are buying a larger number of hearts and minds.......and eventually VOTES in larger numbers........this and this alone is why the Dems continue to build their base.

I think that if only people who paid taxes were allowed to vote we would have a much different make-up in the people that were going to Washington.....not necessarily party affiliation but the people that could get elected......my .02:rant:

As long as the Republicans stay on the wrong side of social issues, insist on pushing moral and religious issues as political ones, and still think the only reason they are loosing popularity is because people want free stuff... they are going to keep loosing market share.


Voters have realized that corporate welfare damages this country much more than social welfare and are going to swing the needle.

 

[squeezer]

Squeezer....just to be clear the flaw is not in your math but in your thesis.......$ paid out in comparison to $ in revenue per person.......the reality is that the politicians are really only worried about votes so the more accurate representation of why we are swinging left has to do with percentage of folks on "The Dole" as a percentage of the population because in reality the only reason Congress (both sides of the aisle) do anything is for votes.....we have all agreed to agree on this one already on this forum.

The liberal side of the aisle continues to gain support as more of their voter base gets on "the Dole", the Republicans by contrast are doing the same thing but in bigger chunks to a smaller group of people......which is why they are losing because they pimp themselves out to a much smaller number of voters albeit paying more $ into the coffers. The Democrats alternately are strategically portioning it back out in much smaller chunks but in the process they are buying a larger number of hearts and minds.......and eventually VOTES in larger numbers........this and this alone is why the Dems continue to build their base.

I think that if only people who paid taxes were allowed to vote we would have a much different make-up in the people that were going to Washington.....not necessarily party affiliation but the people that could get elected......my .02:rant:

Take a look at those links again... The numbers clearly indicate that on a per capita (percentage basis) red states take in more welfare than blue ones. So saying handouts buy votes (and I am very specifically talking about presidential elections here) is just not supported.

 

[Paul65k]

As long as the Republicans stay on the wrong side of social issues, insist on pushing moral and religious issues as political ones, and still think the only reason they are loosing popularity is because people want free stuff... they are going to keep loosing market share.


Voters have realized that corporate welfare damages this country much more than social welfare and are going to swing the needle.

Squeeze,

Once again you have done a masterful job of stating your position when responding to one of my posts and not addressing one single point that I make.

My post was actually very centrist and again you have to spin it as way to launch into a barely related left leaning talking point.....not surprised but I will continue to try and read others posts, analyze what they say and add commentary if and only if I have something in direct response to what was said, otherwise I suggest that you just "reply" and not "reply with quote" as this is a clear indication that you are adding a new thought and not responding to a particular point being put forth......give it a try it's thought provoking:rolleyes

 

[Froggystyle]

As long as the Republicans stay on the wrong side of social issues, insist on pushing moral and religious issues as political ones, and still think the only reason they are loosing popularity is because people want free stuff... they are going to keep loosing market share.

Agreed.

Voters have realized that corporate welfare damages this country much more than social welfare and are going to swing the needle.

Horseshit.

Voters are voting for their own best interests. They could give a shit what XYZ company does... As long as they get theirs.

Take Wal-Mart for example. A favorite of the dirt poor. A mainstay you could say. Some of the worst corporate greed on the planet. Beneficiaries of preferential taxing, free property in some cases... And they flock there in droves. They don't even have to vote and hope for it... All you have to do is stop going. But it's cheap, plentiful and open. And they go and support it.

The electorate is voting with their wallets in every case. The rich for lower taxes and protection from labor, the poor for welfare, aid and subsidies.

There is just a hell of a lot more poor to vote with.

 

[Froggystyle]

I suggest that you just "reply" and not "reply with quote" as this is a clear indication that you are adding a new thought and not responding to a particular point being put forth......give it a try it's thought provoking:rolleyes

No.

 

[Paul65k]

No.

 

[squeezer]

Squeeze,

Once again you have done a masterful job of stating your position when responding to one of my posts and not addressing one single point that I make.

My post was actually very centrist and again you have to spin it as way to launch into a barely related left leaning talking point.....not surprised but I will continue to try and read others posts, analyze what they say and add commentary if and only if I have something in direct response to what was said, otherwise I suggest that you just "reply" and not "reply with quote" as this is a clear indication that you are adding a new thought and not responding to a particular point being put forth......give it a try it's thought provoking:rolleyes

Really... You clearly stated that Republicans are loosing because they are giving out more $$ to fewer people while the democrats are able to buy more votes because the give out less $$$ to more people... This is not consistent when you look at numbers based on percentage of population... 7 out of 12 states with the highest rates of food stamp usage voted republican. Yes there are geographic factors that come into play here that go beyond the politics but the single myth I am trying to bust for the guys on the right is that welfare buys votes. Keep in mind that I firmly believe that the longer the right clings to that theory the worse off they are going to be.

So i take it all back... Yes you are right, its the poor people who are wrecking this country. Damm welfare queens scooping all the free money and using up all the cell phone bandwidth...

 

[Paul65k]

Really... You clearly stated that Republicans are loosing because they are giving out more $$ to fewer people while the democrats are able to buy more votes because the give out less $$$ to more people... This is not consistent when you look at numbers based on percentage of population... 7 out of 12 states with the highest rates of food stamp usage voted republican. Yes there are geographic factors that come into play here that go beyond the politics but the single myth I am trying to bust for the guys on the right is that welfare buys votes. Keep in mind that I firmly believe that the longer the right clings to that theory the worse off they are going to be.

So i take it all back... Yes you are right, its the poor people who are wrecking this country. Damm welfare queens scooping all the free money and using up all the cell phone bandwidth...

Whatever:rolleyes

 

[Paul65k]

Squeezer....just to be clear the flaw is not in your math but in your thesis.......$ paid out in comparison to $ in revenue per person.......the reality is that the politicians are really only worried about votes so the more accurate representation of why we are swinging left has to do with percentage of folks on "The Dole" as a percentage of the population because in reality the only reason Congress (both sides of the aisle) do anything is for votes.....we have all agreed to agree on this one already on this forum.

The liberal side of the aisle continues to gain support as more of their voter base gets on "the Dole", the Republicans by contrast are doing the same thing but in bigger chunks to a smaller group of people......which is why they are losing because they pimp themselves out to a much smaller number of voters albeit paying more $ into the coffers. The Democrats alternately are strategically portioning it back out in much smaller chunks but in the process they are buying a larger number of hearts and minds.......and eventually VOTES in larger numbers........this and this alone is why the Dems continue to build their base.

I think that if only people who paid taxes were allowed to vote we would have a much different make-up in the people that were going to Washington.....not necessarily party affiliation but the people that could get elected......my .02:rant:

Really... You clearly stated that Republicans are loosing because they are giving out more $$ to fewer people while the democrats are able to buy more votes because the give out less $$$ to more people... This is not consistent when you look at numbers based on percentage of population... 7 out of 12 states with the highest rates of food stamp usage voted republican. Yes there are geographic factors that come into play here that go beyond the politics but the single myth I am trying to bust for the guys on the right is that welfare buys votes. Keep in mind that I firmly believe that the longer the right clings to that theory the worse off they are going to be.

So i take it all back... Yes you are right, its the poor people who are wrecking this country. Damm welfare queens scooping all the free money and using up all the cell phone bandwidth...

Maybe you missed this post

 

[Froggystyle]

Really... You clearly stated that Republicans are loosing because they are giving out more $$ to fewer people while the democrats are able to buy more votes because the give out less $$$ to more people... This is not consistent when you look at numbers based on percentage of population... 7 out of 12 states with the highest rates of food stamp usage voted republican. Yes there are geographic factors that come into play here that go beyond the politics but the single myth I am trying to bust for the guys on the right is that welfare buys votes. Keep in mind that I firmly believe that the longer the right clings to that theory the worse off they are going to be.

Welfare does buy votes. The welfare votes were the swing votes in 2008 and 2012. That's pretty clear. No new, never voted before, black or other minority, welfare using non tax paying voters... a demographic that cane out in droves... went with McCain or Romney... Of THAT you can be sure.

So i take it all back... Yes you are right, its the poor people who are wrecking this country. Damm welfare queens scooping all the free money and using up all the cell phone bandwidth...

You say it in jest... But the lower classes are getting lower due primarily to sloth, and that is a direct correlation to welfare in my opinion. You can't keep feeding people for free and expect them to start working for it.

It's pride that makes you want to get off of unemployment or welfare. The stigma of it is non-existent in this class. Non-existent.

 

[squeezer]

Agreed.




Horseshit.

Voters are voting for their own best interests. They could give a shit what XYZ company does... As long as they get theirs.

Take Wal-Mart for example. A favorite of the dirt poor. A mainstay you could say. Some of the worst corporate greed on the planet. Beneficiaries of preferential taxing, free property in some cases... And they flock there in droves. They don't even have to vote and hope for it... All you have to do is stop going. But it's cheap, plentiful and open. And they go and support it.

The electorate is voting with their wallets in every case. The rich for lower taxes and protection from labor, the poor for welfare, aid and subsidies.

There is just a hell of a lot more poor to vote with.

Not going to disagree with everything here but the last election was one/lost based on the social positions taken by the parties.

Obama took women at 55%. If you think this was about economics and not the rape/birth-control/etc fiasco on the right you are mistaken.

Obama took the under 30 crowd at nearly 60%. That group does not vote with their wallet, they vote with their hearts. You wont find a majority of people in that age group who agree with the Repubs on gay mairage, the environment, health care reform, immigration etc.

Obama took 93% of the black vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote, 73% of the Asian vote, 58% of the other (non-white) vote. Do you think the immigration stance might have come into play here?

The single most polarized issue was healtcare, out of the 17% who said it was the most important issue 75% voted for Obama. 60% of the people stated the economy was the #1 issue but did not favor either candidate all the strongly (Mitt by a few percent). Romney would have won this election if he would have taken this issue away from the President. The handlers who told Mitt to run away from his most significant political accomplishment should be retained by the RNC and tasked with setting the midterm playbook... Give them good solid research by Gallup and the fair and balanced coverage on Fox and what could go wrong?

 

[thetub]

and they are basically guaranteeing themselves the hispanic votes for a couple of generations......
bring em in and take care of em...

 

[Paul65k]

Obama took 93% of the black vote

No......really:eek

 

[thetub]

Not going to disagree with everything here but the last election was one/lost based on the social positions taken by the parties.

Obama took women at 55%. If you think this was about economics and not the rape/birth-control/etc fiasco on the right you are mistaken.

Obama took the under 30 crowd at nearly 60%. That group does not vote with their wallet, they vote with their hearts. You wont find a majority of people in that age group who agree with the Repubs on gay mairage, the environment, health care reform, immigration etc.

Obama took 93% of the black vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote, 73% of the Asian vote, 58% of the other (non-white) vote. Do you think the immigration stance might have come into play here?

The single most polarized issue was healtcare, out of the 17% who said it was the most important issue 75% voted for Obama. 60% of the people stated the economy was the #1 issue but did not favor either candidate all the strongly (Mitt by a few percent). Romney would have won this election if he would have taken this issue away from the President. The handlers who told Mitt to run away from his most significant political accomplishment should be retained by the RNC and tasked with setting the midterm playbook... Give them good solid research by Gallup and the fair and balanced coverage on Fox and what could go wrong?

exactly Squeeze. The minority vote did it for him. call me a bigot or racist , but I would bet a dollar for a doughnut that a majority of minorities are on some sort of assistance.. hence buying their vote.

 

[squeezer]

You say it in jest... But the lower classes are getting lower due primarily to sloth, and that is a direct correlation to welfare in my opinion. You can't keep feeding people for free and expect them to start working for it.

It's pride that makes you want to get off of unemployment or welfare. The stigma of it is non-existent in this class. Non-existent.

Sloth... really??

Income stagnation for 90% of the population doesn't factor in?

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, the average income was still just $33,000 in 2008. (IRS data).

 

[squeezer]

exactly Squeeze. The minority vote did it for him. call me a bigot or racist , but I would bet a dollar for a doughnut that a majority of minorities are on some sort of assistance.. hence buying their vote.

Not bigoted or racist to point out facts...

But before you go down that road take a look at minority populations in red/blue states... California aside you are going to be surprised.


(On Edit)

7 out of the top 10 states with the highest percentage of colored population went red in 2012 (And yes these are pretty much the same 10 states with the highest food stamp usage... )

 

[Paul65k]

Sloth... really??

Income stagnation for 90% of the population doesn't factor in?

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, the average income was still just $33,000 in 2008. (IRS data).

Using "Reply with Quote" because this applies to your post....even if indirectly.

My now departed mother who raised me as a single parent, high school diploma only, working mom that almost always needed 2 jobs to help us get by and even received food stamps when I was 9 or 10 years old for a short period of time to get by. I remember having to do most os the shopping with a list during that time period because my mother was too ashamed to use them but we needed them to eat.

In any case she was a true success story, she put herself through college at night eventually earning her degree and becoming a CPA used to have a favorite saying for her smart assed son it went something like this;

"Figures never lie but liars often figure".......this is the singular thought that almost always pops into my head when anyone (regardless of political affiliation) uses data that is so easily "Massaged" to make a particular point as you and so many others do especially when trying to justify a particular political point of view.

 

[squeezer]

Using "Reply with Quote" because this applies to your post....even if indirectly.

My now departed mother who raised me as a single parent, high school diploma only, working mom that almost always needed 2 jobs to help us get by and even received food stamps when I was 9 or 10 years old for a short period of time to get by. I remember having to do most os the shopping with a list during that time period because my mother was too ashamed to use them but we needed them to eat.

In any case she was a true success story, she put herself through college at night eventually earning her degree and becoming a CPA used to have a favorite saying for her smart assed son it went something like this;

"Figures never lie but liars often figure".......this is the singular thought that almost always pops into my head when anyone (regardless of political affiliation) uses data that is so easily "Massaged" to make a particular point as you and so many others do especially when trying to justify a particular political point of view.

Your mother sounds like a cool lady...

Do you want to step up and point out which numbers you disagree with here?

 

[Paul65k]

"Figures never lie but liars often figure".

Your mother sounds like a cool lady...

Do you want to step up and point out which numbers you disagree with here?

Once again you didn't read ALL the post cuz if you did you would see that I don't take exception with your figures......just how you spin them

 

[squeezer]

Once again you didn't read ALL the post cuz if you did you would see that I don't take exception with your figures......just how you spin them

So point out what you believe the numbers to signify...

 

[thetub]

Sloth... really??

Income stagnation for 90% of the population doesn't factor in?

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, the average income was still just $33,000 in 2008. (IRS data).

Squeeze,these are scary numbers. But i think alot more comes into play here. The US has been stagnating as a country for 40 years . Basically after the war and industrial boom we blew our wad. Then globalization came into the equation and basically lowered living standards of the US. Mind you its still the best place to live for the bottom 90 percent compared to a 3rd world country. throw in the weakening dollar in the mix and its even worse....

the bottom 90% and the middle class ,if there is any is feeling the Squeeze do to this weakening dollar and inflation affect. The top 2% will always weather that storm.





the top elite in the WORLD are running the show.

 

[Paul65k]

So point out what you believe the numbers to signify...

That you are clever in the way you spin them

 

[regor]

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S. 2012
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11

That's a lot of blue. They know how to keep there base happy.

 

[squeezer]

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S. 2012
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11

That's a lot of blue. They know how to keep there base happy.

Correlate that with the cost of living in each state and lets see where it nets out... Then take a look at the usage rates.

(And do you really think Hawaii went blue because of welfare payouts?)

 

[Froggystyle]

(And do you really think Hawaii went blue because of welfare payouts?)

Absolutely. That is the only one not in question in my mind.

My brother moved there a few years ago and as a business owner has found it EXTREMELY difficult to find motivated, educated employees in the private sector.

Big case of class distinction there. It's millionaires and paupers.

 

[regor]

Absolutely. That is the only one not in question in my mind.

My brother moved there a few years ago and as a business owner has found it EXTREMELY difficult to find motivated, educated employees in the private sector.

Big case of class distinction there. It's millionaires and paupers.

A Democrats dream! :thumbsup

 

[squeezer]

Absolutely. That is the only one not in question in my mind.

My brother moved there a few years ago and as a business owner has found it EXTREMELY difficult to find motivated, educated employees in the private sector.

Big case of class distinction there. It's millionaires and paupers.

So lazyness causes huge income gaps or huge income gaps cause lazyness...???


There might be a socioeconomic case study worth looking at.

 

[regor]

Correlate that with the cost of living in each state and lets see where it nets out... Then take a look at the usage rates.

(And do you really think Hawaii went blue because of welfare payouts?)

The cost of living should be the same for ANYONE on Welfare IMO. If you can't afford to live in a "high cost of living" state, then get out. They give these people way to much money Squeeze and then they snag their vote.

 

[Froggystyle]

So lazyness causes huge income gaps or huge income gaps cause lazyness...???


There might be a socioeconomic case study worth looking at.

I think it is simpler that that sociologically.

As much as nobody wants to admit it... We are animals. We behave like animals, and we need only look at monkeys to see how closely our DNA is to them. To me... We are all highly trained and refined apes, but the instinct and nature isn't too far below the surface.

I saw this last year, and thought it ironic...

"The food stamp program, a part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the Park Service, also a part of the Department of Agriculture, tells us, "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves."

I can't imagine someone myopic enough to miss the direct correlation.

To answer your question... It is the former. Welfare contributes to laziness, which contributes to large income gaps.

 

[squeezer]

The cost of living should be the same for ANYONE on Welfare IMO. If you can't afford to live in a "high cost of living" state, then get out. They give these people way to much money Squeeze and then they snag their vote.

Do you put any thought to this stuff before you type it out?

Tell me how a native islander living below the poverty level is going to get out? Where are they going to go? And while you are formulating your answer keep in mind many of those folks have not left the island they were born on.

But its just like a right wing zealot to suggest that the solution to a problem generated by huge amounts of outside cash upsetting the balance of a normal economy and creating a huge problem... Is to tell the local to leave.

WTF kind of programing does it take for you to dream up this shit?

 

[Froggystyle]

I have been successful for a number of years now with my new/old profession of consulting and engineering services. My employer/partner keeps trying to give me raises, and with them more responsibility and work of course.

I don't consider that a reward. I asked him years ago to consider a raise for me to be getting paid the same and working less.

It's worked. I don't get any more money per month salary, but much more time off, better clients, less travel and ironically make much more in commissions now.

I don't think this idea is lost on the welfare nation. They will take less money for less work.

Welfare is actually pretty close to working a 30 hour week at minimum wage. You get that for "free". Work 10 hours under the table somewhere and you match your full time wage (or better it...) while working 25% as much, if that. That doesn't include commute expenses which drop by 75% as well as commute time lost.

 

[squeezer]

..."The food stamp program, a part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the Park Service, also a part of the Department of Agriculture, tells us, "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves."

I can't imagine someone myopic enough to miss the direct correlation.

And what do you think happens when outside factors remove the natural sources of food for those animal? What do you think the Park Ranger should do if there is a single aggressive bear killing all the other animals just for sport?

 

[Froggystyle]

Do you put any thought to this stuff before you type it out?

Tell me how a native islander living below the poverty level is going to get out? Where are they going to go? And while you are formulating your answer keep in mind many of those folks have not left the island they were born on.

But its just like a right wing zealot to suggest that the solution to a problem generated by huge amounts of outside cash upsetting the balance of a normal economy and creating a huge problem... Is to tell the local to leave.

WTF kind of programing does it take for you to dream up this shit?

I gotta say... I'm with Regor on this one.

I have never understood subsidizing at any level in a premium market. People pay a lot extra, that they earn, to live in La Jolla, Hawaii, Laguna, etc...

If you aren't working... Beat it. Employers pay a COLA for folks in those areas otherwise you wouldn't find workers. You pay for the area. I knew that even though I was paying $25/hr for riggers and laminators, I was doing that to live in San Diego myself.

If I had moved to Chandler or Mississippi or something, I could have paid half that.

These non-income non-workers are taking up low income housing, resources and infrastructure for people who want to work in that region.

Stop paying COLA on welfare, EBT and the like.

 

[Froggystyle]

And what do you think happens when outside factors remove the natural sources of food for those animal? What do you think the Park Ranger should do if there is a single aggressive bear killing all the other animals just for sport?

Easy... Put them on a reservation.



I'm not a park ranger. But my guess is that humans feeding squirrels Pop Tarts isn't good for anyone.

Without the human feeding (welfare), there would be fewer squirrels as there isn't enough food. There are plenty of squirrels in the country though, so a few less in Yosemite is fine. I'm there for the rocks, not the rodents.

Instead, the squirrel population exploded when humans started visiting and feeding them. They, as a microcosm, are now dependent on human food (welfare) to support the population. Not surprisingly, the mortality rate in squirrels is almost non-existent (food year round) and they are getting obese as well.

There will be more squirrels next year eating human food than this year.

If humans stopped feeding them, they would lose some numbers. Probably a lot, as most of them have been born into this welfare lifestyle and have no idea what it takes to shake a tree to look for nuts, or probably what nuts you can even eat.

A perfect analog.

 

[regor]

Do you put any thought to this stuff before you type it out?

Tell me how a native islander living below the poverty level is going to get out? Where are they going to go? And while you are formulating your answer keep in mind many of those folks have not left the island they were born on.

But its just like a right wing zealot to suggest that the solution to a problem generated by huge amounts of outside cash upsetting the balance of a normal economy and creating a huge problem... Is to tell the local to leave.

WTF kind of programing does it take for you to dream up this shit?

It was a tongue in cheek comment for the most part Squeeze, I know they can't move them out, I get it. :champagne:

I have to go buy a car for my mom. Going to stimulate the economy, so the Dem's can hand out the the tax dollars for votes. :thumbsup