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 just don't get this. If one of 3 are on some kind of government assistance and continues to grow, then won't the majority be poor, in America, voting?
Of course those on government assistance will vote to get free services. This is tragic for America! It's no doubt our system is broken. If the poor's vote gets bigger, we will for sure be a socialistic country and will be in BIG TROUBLE!
If poor people voted at the same rate as the middle class you'd be on track, but the poor have a much lower voting rate. Many demographic factors are involved e.g. income, education, age, length of residence, housing tenure (own or rent), marital status, etc - and the poor are worse off in every demographic measurement. For example, older people are much more likely to vote than younger people, homeowners are much more likely to vote than renters, married people are more likely to vote than single people, etc.
Because don't most poor people want to stay on government hand-outs?...we need this country to turn around!
Most poor people want a good job...but most poor people can't get a good job. What's happening is that poor people who used to work at McJobs are now finding government handouts preferable to McJobs.
The structure of means-tested programs are also a huge problem, because people who are getting assistance typically pay HUGE effective tax rates if they try to get ahead by earning money. A welfare recipient who earns $100 doesn't get to keep much of it because their TANF, food stamps, etc are reduced.
Middle class Americans would consider taxes confiscatory if they were allowed to keep the same proportion of earnings as welfare recipients are allowed to keep.
Depends on the benefits, if we are talking universal healthcare, free or reduced higher education, and other benefits that are found in places like Germany, I would be happy to pay a much higher tax rate. Though currently my taxes are below 25% I believe, but I always do the math and take out about 30% so if I had to pick a percentage, I would say 30% would be ideal.
What would not be ideal for you?
What % is your limit to the point beyond that you would be mad enough to write your representative?
If poor people voted at the same rate as the middle class you'd be on track, but the poor have a much lower voting rate. Many demographic factors are involved e.g. income, education, age, length of residence, housing tenure (own or rent), marital status, etc - and the poor are worse off in every demographic measurement. For example, older people are much more likely to vote than younger people, homeowners are much more likely to vote than renters, married people are more likely to vote than single people, etc.
I am frustrated with the direction our country is going. It's getting worse and worse and yet more and more poor.
I stand in line, paying cash for my items after work. I see person after person using a food stamp card. The majority are obese and stuck in a rut. These are so many who are voting.
Why is work and health such a dirty word?
I too feel the same way but sadly we are in the minority... and a rapidly shrinking one at that. The sheeple have become the majority, the majority win.. right or wrong. The crooks , I mean politicians have used the rules set in place to sway the game in their direction. I figure at some point in time it might just be easier to assimilate , get a lobotomy and join the ranks of the sheeple than fight it anymore.
Are you kidding me? Bush blew up the debt from Clinton. And the reason why we have more people getting social relief now is because he let the banks tank the economy.
Actually, the national deficit has gone down a bit under Obama, who is cleaning up the mess that Bush left him --- with the Congressional Republicans throwing everything and the kitchen sink at him.
I don't want to get into details.. it could just be a perception type of thing. I just look back at the Reagon, Clinton and Bush years and my paychecks were higher , I could find a job (in the same field) in a matter of a few phone calls for $3-5 an hour more per hour, I had new vehicles, my house was worth more, gas and fuel were cheaper.. etc , etc.
Things for me started getting sketchy for me around '07, had to leave my family and home to work out of state then. 2 years of that , got laid off for a year , and now am working but making the same as I did in '01. My house is worth less than I own on it, fuel and gas is higher, jobs are hard to find (it does seem to be coming around slowly though) , I pay more taxes...pretty much everything is costing more with my salary being less.
I'm doing okay because I've had to adapt, sold off the expensive toys, drive old vehicles , things like that but that still doesn't change the fact that many of us are not doing as well as we once did. How can a spin be put on this to show that this administration is successful ?
why not just go back to the good ol' days when only wealthy white landowners had the right to vote.
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.
good ol' days
