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.
Why should we only consider white voters, to make this a valid statement? Since when don't black people count?
The OP didn't say anything about race, they were comparing Dems vs Reps - and having common voting trends among a certain race doesn't "skew" anything, it just is what it is. Again, since when are black voters not counted as Americans in general?
Something like 90% of all blacks vote Democrat, so any (sub)group with a disproportionate share of blacks is going to vote disproportionately Democrat. These blacks overwhelmingly would prefer Dems whether or not they are on welfare, so it's kinda misleading to suggest that "welfare recipients vote Democrat". ANY group which is 40 percent black is going to prefer Democrats, so we can't say that receiving welfare is driving their voting preferences.
What would be meaningful is comparing a sample of welfare recipients controlling for race, so that your welfare sample has the same black proportion as the general population (or the electorate if you prefer). That way race would be excluded as a factor influencing voting preferences, and it would be much easier to see the extent to which receiving welfare affects voting.
As I suggested earlier, we also don't know how aversion to regressive taxes affects the voting preferences of welfare recipients. To sort that out, we'd need to compare welfare recipients across different states. All politics is local so I'd expect to see some variation between states.
A disproportionate number of the seniors in public housing were also in public housing when they were younger.
Meanwhile, SNAP has crazy-low asset tests (2 or 3 thousand, forget which) - if a senior qualifies for it, it means they consumed more than they produced over their lifetime and are now being carried by society.
So no, if they are on either it is unlikely that they contributed more than they took out.
How do you know what they produced? Do you just casually assume everybody is paid what they produce? Don't employers need to pay their workers less than they produce in order to make a profit?
And is it legitimate for government to require people to consume more than they prefer to consume?
Americans are the best-housed people in the world - whether they can afford it or not. If it were up to me I'd buy a cheap tiny house on a postage-stamp lot, and invest the money I would no longer have to pay on rent. But government imposes housing standards on us that forces me to pay inflated rents, thereby leaving me without money to save and invest.
So if I consumed more than I produced over my lifetime, it's because government immorally made me do it.
You need to come out to Oregon. We practice fallow fields quite often. Some farmers do field rotations with mint and clover crops. I won't blow your mind with what the Organic farmers do.
Crop rotation is fairly common here as well. Assuming it is not something like an orchard, no small farmer I have met repeatedly grows the same crop in the same field again and again unless you have incredible soil. Some of the smaller farmers I know rotate crops and pasture land because otherwise you would ruin the soil. In fact many have to be particularly conscientious about this because they land the work on was exhausted by tobacco farming and they have to put some effort in to helping it recover.
It is true. Read the data and the statistics. The majority of welfare recipients (80%) are democrats. Is it any wonder that democratic politicians formulate policy which caters to the non productive componants of society, relative to the working people. This is the constituency of the democratic party, which has come to expect votes in exchange for handouts. This, of course, works to the detriment of the nation as a whole, but is a source of democratic political power.
It is quite clear that the democratic party will sell the soul of the nation, support lethargy, and a dependent population in an effort to maintain political power. The well being of the nation is irrelevant to democrats, who would prefer to ride a tiring horse into the grave, rather than stop and feed and water the animal.
Liberalism is a disease which supports and expands a dependent, non productive population.
38 percent of welfare recipients are white, over 60 percent are non-white. Right there you've got a group that's about 70 percent Democrat, so welfare isn't swinging a lot of votes there. And I think poor people in most states have good tax reasons to prefer Democrats to Republicans.
I would agree with that. Unless one is a property or business owner, a vet or current active duty, they should not be allowed to vote.
The dependent class will continue to simply vote themselves more and more money and destroy the nation.
What then is to stop the homeowner electorate from soaking renters with high and unfair taxes? What's to stop them from tightening their zoning rules to make it harder for renters to escape those high and unfair taxes by buying a home?
In Michigan, the school tax rate on rental property is four times the rate on owner-occupied homes. What's to stop homeowners from making the rate 10x on rental property? Under the Obamacare precedent, what's to stop Congress from taxing people for not buying a home?
Red states tend to have more regressive tax structures than blue states, and a lot of low-income people are sufficiently tax-averse to prefer the candidate and the party that will tax them least.
I'd be surprised if people on TANF have enough income to pay Federal income taxes at all.
I'd be surprised if people on TANF have enough income to pay Federal income taxes at all.
But they do pay the highest state and local tax rates of all income groups.
I used to live in a state where Republicans never met a regressive tax they didn't like, so I found it difficult to vote for Republicans. Then I moved to a state where Republicans hate regressive taxes just as much as they hate progressive taxes, and I found it easy to vote for Republicans, and hard to vote for Democrats.
What about renters? I do agree that most welfare parents are democrats. Most 18 year olds are democrats. I think that most liberal dems don't get it because they don't know what it is like to have to support yourself. Maybe voting should be limited to people who support themselves.
Case in point, I know someone who is all for Obama in the next election. He is fully supported by his mom and girlfriend. Why does he care if the rest of us have to struggle? He has mommy and girlfriend paying his bills. He is talking about buying the next Iphone because he has no bills to pay.
Everyone I know who supports themselves is voting for Romney or writing in Ron Paul in November. People who are dependent are voting for Obama.
What an absolutely nutty post. If you look at the facts, the majority of that 47% of folks who don't pay federal income taxes live in the red states of Idaho, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, etc. Kind of blows your theory in the water, doesn't it?
Incidentally, everyone I know who supports themselves is voting for President Obama. The republicans I know, they're all on welfare and/or taking government handouts, they're voting for Romney because they're too "uneducated" to know that Romney will take away their free ride.
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.
