Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is an overwhelming support for Democrats among people who receive food stamps, unemployment compensation, government disability, public housing, medicaid and welfare/public assistance.
Public Housing: 81% Dem vs 12% Rep
Medicaid: 74% Dem vs 16% Rep
Food Stamps: 67% Dem vs 20% Rep
Unemployment Comp: 66% Dem vs 21% Rep
Disability: 64% Dem vs 25% Rep
Welfare/Public Assistance: 63% Dem vs 22% Rep
This begs to question...
1) Do Democrats really want to get people off government programs?
2) Would it hurt them as a party if we saw 50% less people relying on these government programs?
3) Do Democrats want to create new programs to potentially expand and lock-in their base?
I view it similar to how Apple retains its customers, such as iTunes. You start buying your music from iTunes and it's only compatible with Apple products. If you were to change to say Samsung, you would have to go through a lot of work converting your songs and lose quality as a result from converting these files. I myself at one point was considering trying out Samsung, but decided against it because I was already so engraved into Apple. The more programs Democrats create, the more people who will end up relying on these programs, thus making them more likely to vote for the party who created and supports these programs. This is just my thinking anyways.
--------
DISCLAIMER: I've voted for Obama both elections and haven't regretted my choices. I even have a "I am a proud Obama voter" sticker on my fridge (it was sent to me for free, but I still put it up nonetheless). However, I am perfectly fine with being critical about the party I voted for. I consider myself someone who is near the center because I like ideas from both parties and also hate ideas from both parties. I tend to annoy a lot of hardcore Democrats and hardcore Republicans, but most people around the middle seem to agree with me or at least are fine with me when discussing politics. When it comes to social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cells etc I side with liberals, when it comes fiscal issues such as tax policy, spending, government programs etc I side with conservatives. And then there are some issues where I'm mixed such as the second amendment. I support having universal background checks, but I also support being able to conceal carry for those who qualify. I support funding the military, but I don't want to preemptively police the world. Anyways, that's enough disclaimer lol. My point I'm trying to get across is I'm not attacking Democrats here, this is just a real concern I have about the party.
There is an overwhelming support for Democrats among people who receive food stamps, unemployment compensation, government disability, public housing, medicaid and welfare/public assistance.
Public Housing: 81% Dem vs 12% Rep
Medicaid: 74% Dem vs 16% Rep
Food Stamps: 67% Dem vs 20% Rep
Unemployment Comp: 66% Dem vs 21% Rep
Disability: 64% Dem vs 25% Rep
Welfare/Public Assistance: 63% Dem vs 22% Rep
This begs to question...
1) Do Democrats really want to get people off government programs?
2) Would it hurt them as a party if we saw 50% less people relying on these government programs?
3) Do Democrats want to create new programs to potentially expand and lock-in their base?
I view it similar to how Apple retains its customers, such as iTunes. You start buying your music from iTunes and it's only compatible with Apple products. If you were to change to say Samsung, you would have to go through a lot of work converting your songs and lose quality as a result from converting these files. I myself at one point was considering trying out Samsung, but decided against it because I was already so engraved into Apple. The more programs Democrats create, the more people who will end up relying on these programs, thus making them more likely to vote for the party who created and supports these programs. This is just my thinking anyways.
--------
DISCLAIMER: I've voted for Obama both elections and haven't regretted my choices. I even have a "I am a proud Obama voter" sticker on my fridge (it was sent to me for free, but I still put it up nonetheless). However, I am perfectly fine with being critical about the party I voted for. I consider myself someone who is near the center because I like ideas from both parties and also hate ideas from both parties. I tend to annoy a lot of hardcore Democrats and hardcore Republicans, but most people around the middle seem to agree with me or at least are fine with me when discussing politics. When it comes to social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cells etc I side with liberals, when it comes fiscal issues such as tax policy, spending, government programs etc I side with conservatives. And then there are some issues where I'm mixed such as the second amendment. I support having universal background checks, but I also support being able to conceal carry for those who qualify. I support funding the military, but I don't want to preemptively police the world. Anyways, that's enough disclaimer lol. My point I'm trying to get across is I'm not attacking Democrats here, this is just a real concern I have about the party.
FDR was a disaster as a president.
What should have been a sever recession was made into a depression that caused millions of otherwise hardworking independent Americans to become desperately dependent on government largess.
For Democrats, this desperation became a political windfall as they were also the party of government handouts.
In the end, even though the economy was a disaster for years and years after it should have fully recovered, the ****ty economy meant FDR had to die in office to lose the presidency.
This lesson is one learned by every Democrat.
LBJ made this deal with the devil the official modus operandi of the Party with his war on poverty that has become the war on black fatherhood.
Today, programs like free cell phone service are available to those who belong to the club...
Most people will qualify for a Lifeline cell phone and service through their participation in a federal or state assistance program. The theory goes, if you are on these designated programs then you have already proven yourself to be in financial need; so no need to prove it all over again. Here are the universal federal assistance programs you’ll find in every state:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP)
Medicaid
National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance
Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF)
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
What should have been a sever recession was made into a depression that caused millions of otherwise hardworking independent Americans to become desperately dependent on government largess.
For Democrats, this desperation became a political windfall as they were also the party of government handouts.
In the end, even though the economy was a disaster for years and years after it should have fully recovered, the ****ty economy meant FDR had to die in office to lose the presidency.
This lesson is one learned by every Democrat.
LBJ made this deal with the devil the official modus operandi of the Party with his war on poverty that has become the war on black fatherhood.
Today, programs like free cell phone service are available to those who belong to the club...
Most people will qualify for a Lifeline cell phone and service through their participation in a federal or state assistance program. The theory goes, if you are on these designated programs then you have already proven yourself to be in financial need; so no need to prove it all over again. Here are the universal federal assistance programs you’ll find in every state:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP)
Medicaid
National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance
Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF)
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
There is an overwhelming support for Democrats among people who receive food stamps, unemployment compensation, government disability, public housing, medicaid and welfare/public assistance.
Public Housing: 81% Dem vs 12% Rep
Medicaid: 74% Dem vs 16% Rep
Food Stamps: 67% Dem vs 20% Rep
Unemployment Comp: 66% Dem vs 21% Rep
Disability: 64% Dem vs 25% Rep
Welfare/Public Assistance: 63% Dem vs 22% Rep
This begs to question...
1) Do Democrats really want to get people off government programs?
2) Would it hurt them as a party if we saw 50% less people relying on these government programs?
3) Do Democrats want to create new programs to potentially expand and lock-in their base?
.
I am curious as to the source of the stats you posted. No one has to disclose if they recieve " welfare benefits" as a condition of voting. Exit polls typically don't ask how you voted and then get into the weeds on what " welfare" benefits you may or may not recieve. The number of people polled also matters.
A meaningful percentage of the elderly live in public housing or recieve housing vouchers. Generally speaking a majority of seniors tend to vote Republican. Some elderly also recieve SNAP benefits.
Appelachia tends to vote solid Republican, despite legacy dependency on various welfare benefit programs.
There's a heck of a lot of very wealthy folk in California ( sans Orange County) and NYC who vote Democrat.
Lot's of low income folk in the greater Miami area who historically trend Democrat.
Voter turnout in the so called urban ghettos can trend dismal, especially in national elections.
I live in a solid blue state. Despite this, the people elected a Republican for Governor as they tend to do from time to time. Sometimes, they even elect a Republican Governor to a second term. Same deal in NJ.
The Democrat Mayor of Chicago does not have the backing of the all- powerful Teacher's Union.
There is an overwhelming support for Democrats among people who receive food stamps, unemployment compensation, government disability, public housing, medicaid and welfare/public assistance.
Public Housing: 81% Dem vs 12% Rep
Medicaid: 74% Dem vs 16% Rep
Food Stamps: 67% Dem vs 20% Rep
Unemployment Comp: 66% Dem vs 21% Rep
Disability: 64% Dem vs 25% Rep
Welfare/Public Assistance: 63% Dem vs 22% Rep
This begs to question...
1) Do Democrats really want to get people off government programs?
2) Would it hurt them as a party if we saw 50% less people relying on these government programs?
3) Do Democrats want to create new programs to potentially expand and lock-in their base?
I view it similar to how Apple retains its customers, such as iTunes. You start buying your music from iTunes and it's only compatible with Apple products. If you were to change to say Samsung, you would have to go through a lot of work converting your songs and lose quality as a result from converting these files. I myself at one point was considering trying out Samsung, but decided against it because I was already so engraved into Apple. The more programs Democrats create, the more people who will end up relying on these programs, thus making them more likely to vote for the party who created and supports these programs. This is just my thinking anyways.
--------
DISCLAIMER: I've voted for Obama both elections and haven't regretted my choices. I even have a "I am a proud Obama voter" sticker on my fridge (it was sent to me for free, but I still put it up nonetheless). However, I am perfectly fine with being critical about the party I voted for. I consider myself someone who is near the center because I like ideas from both parties and also hate ideas from both parties. I tend to annoy a lot of hardcore Democrats and hardcore Republicans, but most people around the middle seem to agree with me or at least are fine with me when discussing politics. When it comes to social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cells etc I side with liberals, when it comes fiscal issues such as tax policy, spending, government programs etc I side with conservatives. And then there are some issues where I'm mixed such as the second amendment. I support having universal background checks, but I also support being able to conceal carry for those who qualify. I support funding the military, but I don't want to preemptively police the world. Anyways, that's enough disclaimer lol. My point I'm trying to get across is I'm not attacking Democrats here, this is just a real concern I have about the party.
I ask you in all seriousness:
Have you EVER seen a dem proposal that CUTS BACK on gov't programs?
Have you EVER seen the dems REDUCE a programs budget?
Have you EVER seen the dems propose an evaluation of existing programs to get rid of the waste, fraud, abuse and redundancy of said programs?
Answer those and you have you have the answer to your own question.
What should have been a sever recession was made into a depression that caused millions of otherwise hardworking independent Americans to become desperately dependent on government largess.
For Democrats, this desperation became a political windfall as they were also the party of government handouts.
In the end, even though the economy was a disaster for years and years after it should have fully recovered, the ****ty economy meant FDR had to die in office to lose the presidency.
This lesson is one learned by every Democrat.
LBJ made this deal with the devil the official modus operandi of the Party with his war on poverty that has become the war on black fatherhood.
Today, programs like free cell phone service are available to those who belong to the club...
Most people will qualify for a Lifeline cell phone and service through their participation in a federal or state assistance program. The theory goes, if you are on these designated programs then you have already proven yourself to be in financial need; so no need to prove it all over again. Here are the universal federal assistance programs you’ll find in every state:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps or SNAP)
Medicaid
National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance
Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TTANF)
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
However, if you don`t belong to the club, if you work for a living, then you can go pound sand.
You left out a very important one, IMO, The UN Earned Income Tax Credit, where you DON'T pay taxes yet, are given a "refund'.
The IRS states, " What is EITC, Earned Income Tax Credit?
EITC, Earned Income Tax Credit, is a benefit for working people who have low to moderate income. A tax credit means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of tax you owe and may also give you a refund.
EITC is also called EIC or Earned Income Credit.
The biggest class of welfare recipients in this country are the people that own and work for the Military Contractors. We spend billions for those people to foment the never ending war so they can continue to sell overpriced weapons that do not work while using some of the money to bribe Congress to keep the money flowing.
The biggest class of welfare recipients in this country are the people that own and work for the Military Contractors. We spend billions for those people to foment the never ending war so they can continue to sell overpriced weapons that do not work while using some of the money to bribe Congress to keep the money flowing.
Like welfare, military spending is a symptom of a corrupt government, neither are the cause (i.e. the welfare cheat and the military contractor aren't the problem, the government who steals our money and doles it out to them is)
Strip the money and control from it and these issues take care of themselves.
The biggest flaw in your argument is that poor people are big part of the voting base. They're not. It's mainly the most educated and most liberal who vote Democratic. (Eg, Harvard PhDs, artists, teachers, etc)
The "compassionate conservative" does not currently exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
