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.
Obama also captured 64% of those with a high school education or less; but 55% of those with post graduate education; Romney won those with a stand-alone college degree (51%-47%)
You are simply wrong on all accounts. Those making less than 30k overwhelmingly voted for Obama at 63%. Those with a high school diploma or less, won his vote as well at 64%. Those who made 50k or more voted for Romney. In essence the "47%" (however you choose define that) won this election.
Those are the facts, so let's start from there...ready set go...
You don't understand polling. those making under $30,000 most of whom worked only represented 20% of all voters.
Yes, they voted overwhelmingly for the President, but they only represent about 15million of the 62million votes the president received.
80% of all voters had household incomes above $30,000 and the President received the 46.5million votes from those voters.
Hate doesn't motivate, hope does. People who are upside down in their mortgages, out of a job and literally dying because their insurance won't cover their needs despite doling out money to it monthly need hope, to busy to hate everyone.
They need real solutions. Things have changed, we have more Americans that need help. Time for some changes, that's what this election confirmed to me.
Social security was created when the projected average life was 59 years.
Medicare was created in 1965. Who paid for subsequent Medicare benefits for those who did not contribute for the prior 40-45 years?
The amount of SS and Medicare benefits being awarded is substantially greater than what people contributed. With 10,000 people turning 65 every day, where's this going?
Projected lifespans continue to increase and yet the trigger age remains fundamentally unchanged.
It's unsustainable. And I say this as someone who is closer to 65 than 45.
Yea make the old pay for paying into ss. The old white guys like me deserve to not get any benefits
It's because Republicans love to project. Republicans absolutely love handouts (ask a Texas business or see how everyone in Houston reacted when it was announced the would cut NASA funding) so they justify taking them by villifying their opponent for taking them also.
Reps, along with tax breaks for the wealthy and tax shelters, you hit on a red-state "entitlement" which they never talk about. They complain about the blue states, while they themselves are the biggest "takers". The smokescreen is very thick.
When you see Democrats clamoring for more programs but only wishing to increase taxes on the rich you have to conclude they want a lot of things they do not want to pay for.
Yeah not that presidents who start 2 wars without paying for them do the same thing or anything
Ever since Obama was re-elected, I keep hearing Republicans making statements that Obama was re-elected because the people who voted for him are looking for a handout.
Maybe because they say they are? What was the whole 99% crap about?
Reps, along with tax breaks for the wealthy and tax shelters, you hit on a red-state "entitlement" which they never talk about. They complain about the blue states, while they themselves are the biggest "takers". The smokescreen is very thick.
Yeah dang NASA was just like giving food stamps and welfare no difference
Yea make the old pay for paying into ss. The old white guys like me deserve to not get any benefits
No one is really saying that, just stating the fact that the american dream of retiring at 62-65 won't be around much longer. People will have to wait until their 70's to get it, and most likely put more into the system to get it.
And you continue to use TANF as your reference point. TANF recipients DECREASED under Bush and INCREASED under Obama. (yes, yes, we know...the "Bush economy")
If you want to discuss discretionary spending separate from Medicare and Medicaid (Medicaid is for the poor, so there goes half your argument), then make your claim But convienetly mixing all entitelments to create a collage is disingenuous.
TANF increased under Obama due to the recession. But it has increased very little.
Medicaid is not just for the poor this is a lie. It goes to support alot of the elderly in nursing homes and for a lot of the disabled. Check the spending for medicaid. So the over 65 population spends at least half of the money in medicaid.
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.
Reps, along with tax breaks for the wealthy and tax shelters, you hit on a red-state "entitlement" which they never talk about. They complain about the blue states, while they themselves are the biggest "takers". The smokescreen is very thick.
