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.
You may be misinterpreting the assertion. Pew Center Research does seem to support the assertion that most of those receiving assistance are Democrats.
Oh no, I do see that number (in the lowest income level). But what it does not support is that most Democrats are receiving assistance. And that's the assertion that I keep hearing. In my OP, I wrote:
Quote:
I have heard the assertion on here so many times that "many" or "most" Dems (or libs...the terms are often used interchangeably for this purpose) don't work and are on assistance.
Apparently, the reverse is assumed to be true of Republicans: that "many" or "most" do work, and don't receive government assistance.
I can see that it may have been confusing the way I put it. Meaning, across the nation, obviously "most" Dems don't sit around not working. I have yet to see ANY stat that bears that out.
By association the study you linked points to most poverty-level people identifying as Dems but it doesn't say what percentage of those people do receive assistance (though I do think the majority probably do...or else they wouldn't be eating)...AND the amount of poverty-level total don't constitute a majority of voters, Dem OR Republican.
I hope I'm making sense. Bottom line: *The assertion on here, frequently, is that Dems/"libs" "don't work", that we're lazy, that "most" of us don't have jobs, etc. I have never seen any stat or even observed anything anecdotally that would tell me this (and I'm sure as hell not living it)...so I was looking for ANY backup at all on that assertion. I'm not seeing it.
A majority of poor people may identify as Democrat but that doesn't mean the majority of Democrats across the U.S. don't work.
Does that make sense?
Again, thanks for the solid numbers. I appreciate it a lot.
...Which would tend to come from the lower income groups. Pew Research published their study's statistics on which party members of the lower income groups identify as. Democrats are overrepresented in those groups.
Which doesn't answer the question of how conservative these people may be. A self-identified Democrat from Mississippi may be far more conservative, economically and socially, than a self-identified Republican from New Hampshire.
The label of Democrat/Republican is meaningless if it doesn't tell us who these people are politically. What programs they support, which national politicians they support. What does it matter if Joe Blo identifies himself as a Democrat in Louisiana, if he consistently supports Republican candidates and programs on a national level?
...Which would tend to come from the lower income groups. Pew Research published their study's statistics on which party members of the lower income groups identify as. Democrats are overrepresented in those groups.
Well, you know, to be fair, this part wouldn't really bother me. I mean there are only so many hairs one can split to "prove" numbers...so that's ok by me (as the OP). The thing is that even if the study overrepresented Dems, it still wouldn't (doesn't) show anything at all that says the majority of Dems in the U.S. are on assistance.
Or the majority of any political affiliation, for that matter.
Which doesn't answer the question of how conservative these people may be. A self-identified Democrat from Mississippi may be far more conservative, economically and socially, than a self-identified Republican from New Hampshire.
The label of Democrat/Republican is meaningless if it doesn't tell us who these people are politically. What programs they support, which national politicians they support. What does it matter if Joe Blo identifies himself as a Democrat in Louisiana, if he consistently supports Republican candidates and programs on a national level?
It does tell us which political party they identify with, and how they're likely to vote, no? Otherwise, they would give no answer, or state their independence.
Well, you know, to be fair, this part wouldn't really bother me. I mean there are only so many hairs one can split to "prove" numbers...so that's ok by me (as the OP). The thing is that even if the study overrepresented Dems, it still wouldn't (doesn't) show anything at all that says the majority of Dems in the U.S. are on assistance.
Or the majority of any political affiliation, for that matter.
It does seem to support the assertion that the majority of those receiving assistance are Democrats.
It does seem to support the assertion that the majority of those receiving assistance are Democrats.
Yes. It does support that just by sheer logic (not many people can live on such a low income without assistance).
What it doesn't support is the original question...that most Dems receive assistance.
See what I'm saying? It's the other way around.
What I hear so frequently on here is that "you libs love to not work" and "you libs would love to see everyone sitting around on Welfare" and other comments to the effect that "most" Democrats do not work, and do receive assistance; and that "most" or "all" of us voted Democrat so we could sit around and not work, and receive assistance.
Neither this nor any other study I've ever seen (nor my observations of real life) shows me that most Dems don't work. That is just plain silly and I'm tired of hearing it. So I challenged anyone who could, to prove that "most" Democrats in the U.S. receive assistance.
And obviously, that's not being shown here, or anywhere. It's a huge insult hurled at any Dem (or lib) at any given time here (and elsewhere), but it is so obviously untrue. MOST Dems in the U.S. obviously aren't sitting around on Welfare...since not even "most" people in the U.S., regardless of affiliation are receiving Welfare.
I don't know if this is making sense. The assertion that most Dems don't work and that most of us receive assistance is obviously unsupportable, if not downright laughable.
The only two people I know on the dole are conservative republicans. Anecdotal, but interesting. They say 'they deserve it' after 'paying in for so long'.
I also think it's very interesting that 'libs' and 'dems' are called 'overly intelligent elitists' and now we're all uneducated and on welfare. Odd. Maybe that just means that people are people, regardless of political affiliation.
Yes. It does support that just by sheer logic (not many people can live on such a low income without assistance).
What it doesn't support is the original question...that most Dems receive assistance.
See what I'm saying? It's the other way around.
What I hear so frequently on here is that "you libs love to not work" and "you libs would love to see everyone sitting around on Welfare" and other comments to the effect that "most" Democrats do not work, and do receive assistance; and that "most" or "all" of us voted Democrat so we could sit around and not work, and receive assistance.
Neither this nor any other study I've ever seen (nor my observations of real life) shows me that most Dems don't work. That is just plain silly and I'm tired of hearing it. So I challenged anyone who could, to prove that "most" Democrats in the U.S. receive assistance.
And obviously, that's not being shown here, or anywhere. It's a huge insult hurled at any Dem (or lib) at any given time here (and elsewhere), but it is so obviously untrue. MOST Dems in the U.S. obviously aren't sitting around on Welfare...since not even "most" people in the U.S., regardless of affiliation are receiving Welfare.
I don't know if this is making sense. The assertion that most Dems don't work and that most of us receive assistance is obviously unsupportable, if not downright laughable.
Well, you do realize that 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, right? And did you know that nearly 40% of Americans have a negative effective income tax rate, meaning they actually get more back from the federal government than they pay? Those groups are those who earn lower incomes, in which Democrats are overrepresented.
Let's see. If you're really, really rich you're more likely to have a really, really expensive house. You're also more likely to be a Republican. The federal housing subsidy you are likely to get, then, is likely to be bigger if you're a Republican than if you're a Democrat.
Let's see. If you're really, really rich you're more likely to have a really, really expensive house. You're also more likely to be a Republican. The federal housing subsidy you are likely to get, then, is likely to be bigger if you're a Republican than if you're a Democrat.
Perhaps you could point out where that's reflected in the effective tax rates for those with higher incomes...
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf (broken link)
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.
