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.
I very much doubt that you can provide IQ statistics. Please do.
As for the higher income -- well, yeah.....the Republicans are the party of the rich because they make sure the rich get richer. Note all the draining of the treasury to the rich and the laws favoring the rich which we lived with in the past eight years. Why would working people -- particularly the working poor -- be Republican? Of course they are (or should be) Democrats which brings down the average income. But it's just insane to use that to support the idea that liberals don't work and aren't responsible. Just more of the right wing spinning reality to suit themselves.
I discussed the charitable donations thing numerous time. When you can show that Republicans donate more excluding supporting their own churches (the actual building and administration as well as proselytizing activities) we can talk. Those deductions are no more "charitable" than a gym membership. But I know the stats you refer to and they are skewed because of the tax-free status given to churches.
You can expound upon the racial componant there if you want to. Liberals are such racists.
You really get into that name calling, don't you?
Ok, from the link:
Quote:
....but without considering race, conservatives and liberals are basically at cognitive parity.
"cognitive parity" means "equal".
However, I do think you originally said Republicans have a higher IQ than Democrats and they do by a slight margin, so I will give you that one even though there is no margin of error given.
It doesn't surprise me that self described liberals who are Republicans and self describe conservative who are Democrats have the lowest IQs. All-in-all, there's probably a lot in there that doesn't make you happy.
Quote:
Here is the part about charitable giving. Dems are so greedy and selfish.
His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.
And more name calling....
Ah, he controlled for religious giving but then reported the findings in dollars, not percentage of income. Considering your Republicans are more affluent and that we have most of the poor, it must be embarrassing to discover that the average Republican gives only $88 more/year to charity. Check the third link. We have far more who make less than $40,000/year, a level of income that pretty much means hand-to-mouth living for most families. Not much left over for charity. That population skews the Democratic statistics to make the Republicans look better than they are.
This article is about "the wealthiest voters – defined here as those in the top 10% of household incomes." And it states that for 2007 the two parties were essentially equal. That's probably not what you intended to give me, is it?
Obama went into this w/ the ideal that he could help to bring this country together. I don't think he realized the actual level of bigotry,stupidity,paranoia & bias that still remains in America. I doubt most of us knew,until now.
Liberal name-calling is really the worst part of what is wrong with America.
I know. But this is part of why the OP is exhausted. The graph showed actual budgets, not projections. In the early 90's the projections were horrible after Reagan and Bush I crushed the budget through irresponsible tax cuts (cuts without a reduction in spending). But then what happened? A Democratic President vetoed spending bills until he and Congress balanced the budget, making those projections change. Then the Republicans took charge of everything, and the whole budget went down the $hitter again. Yet people still think that conservative in Congress are fiscally responsible. I just don't get it. How can people think that when a long, documented reality says otherwise?
It's exhausting and frustrating at times.
But this time the president is calling for even more spending...these projections are right on path to be fulfilled.
And Clinton gutted the military for much of his cuts, putting us in a bad position in 2001...
I can't be alone here? I can't take the stupidity anymore. Birthers, Deathers, Socialism, Commies, Facism, Birth Certificates, Muslim, Gun Rights, "I can't let my kids watch the President speak about setting goals and staying in school" loons, and the list goes on, ad nauseam.
I guess what I am most upset about is how Democrats get so derailed from accomplishing anything because we are so afraid of doing anything without the approval of Republicans (god forbid we grow a set). Republicans have had control for so long and have not managed to do one thing, not one, for the middle class. Is there anyone else that feels as disgusted as I do?
Progression is continuing, even with the most backwards segment of this society (Republicans) kicking and screaming.
Obama has put us somewhere around 10 trillion in debt. Off that chart completely.
It took Bush eight years to build up to the $500 deficit, and now 0bama has completely obliterated that figure. The ironic thing, is in the two years 0bama was in the US senate he voted for all of the spending bills, bailouts and TARP, which is the majority of the deficit that Bush built up.
But this time the president is calling for even more spending...these projections are right on path to be fulfilled.
And Clinton gutted the military for much of his cuts, putting us in a bad position in 2001...
Actually Obama has been a proponent for pay-go legislation from the very beginning. He has consistently said we have to get a control on spending and balancing the budget through cuts and a return to taxing the top 1% as they were during Reagan (from 36% to 39%). Yes, we have spent a lot of money this year as a reaction to the meltdown/recession. But that is exactly when government has to spend. To not do so would be irresponsible. This is the test of Keynesian economics and it seems to be working for now, yet (bank) regulation MUST follow for a true economic recovery to hold.
As far as the Clinton cuts in the military, we had PLENTY of military might to go into Afghanistan after 9/11 and get the actual people who attacked us. No, we did not have a military to invade and occupy a large sovereign nation and rebuild it, because doing something like that would be stupid, distracting and extremely costly.
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.
