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.
And Republicans can't win without old white people and Dear Leader's support with that group just dropped 10%
Interesting info on Dem voters, who are supposedly "more educated" than republicans. As income is correlated with education level, the data on Dems just doesn't pan out that way.
"An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over.
About half of Democrats express satisfaction with their personal financial situation, compared with 61 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Independents."
Most of the farm Bill every year (75%-80%) goes to fund Food Stamps, free school meal programs, etc (and collecting both, which happens in many FS households, is double dipping for the same thing). Eliminate them.
Why do Food Stamp recipients have the highest obesity rates? The USDA IG report estimates that 59% of households enrolled in SNAP double-/triple (or more)-dip and get 2 to 3 times (or more) the benefits for many of the exact same meals.
I'm not wrong. Answer the question... California has the 5th largest economy in the world, and at the same time... one of the highest poverty rates in the US. WHY income inequity on such a massive scale in a blue state that can easily afford much better income equity?
We can do poverty rates too and California is #20. Once again, it's the low populated states with the highest poverty rates. Imagine that. First up Mississippi, of course, followed by New Mexico, Louisiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, see a pattern?
Don't insult cities while taking our tax dollars. Those farmers are getting hundreds of billions of tax dollars while charging us for the food they grow. I don't care how rural areas fund their infrastructure, whether it's property taxes, tolling roads or something else but stop making cities pay for the rurals. Trump has thrown plenty of money at rural broadband:
Democrats go to school, get an education, live in cities and suburbs, make money and pay taxes. Rurals, who are over represented electorally, then demand we give them BILLIONS of our tax dollars while saying they oppose socialism. It's a complete joke.
What part of this do you not get? In the current system the cost of your food includes the tax dollars. Take away the tax dollars and they will just charge it for the food alone. You will pay for what you get one way or another. It has nothing to do with whomever is occupying the white house. Do you honestly think if the system were to be suddenly reset that either side would be able to exist without the other? Do you even economics?
By every measure, it's the blue cities paying the bills and rurals that are the real socialists taking our tax dollars.
Now, educate yourself and remove SS and Medicare from the tally. Seniors have prepaid SS and Medicare tax for decades and are now getting the benefits they were promised. That they're more are likely to retire to red states is irrelevant in the federal tax tally.
Quote:
Want to talk about obesity? Check out this map and note the purple states representing over 35% obese. All very consistent.
Should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that consequently, Dems are more poor and more obese than Republicans. They suck up WAY more than their share of federal spending.
That is what terrifies the Dems ^^^ because they can't win elections without the black vote. They'd rather burn down the cities and start a civil war in their thirst for power.
Funny how Dem mayors rule these rioting black cities.
How do you explain Dems winning elections in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Montana, so on and so forth?
And why can't Rs win AAs, Hispanics, Asians Americans, or Native Americans? Given all the different minority groups and their separate geographic and cultural orientations, why aren't Rs winning any of them?
What part of this do you not get? In the current system the cost of your food includes the tax dollars. Take away the tax dollars and they will just charge it for the food alone. You will pay for what you get one way or another. It has nothing to do with whomever is occupying the white house. Do you honestly think if the system were to be suddenly reset that either side would be able to exist without the other? Do you even economics?
Yes I "even economics". Giving less than 2% of the population a hundred billion dollars a year so they can grow (or not grow) food to SELL is ridiculous and the antithesis of capitalism. Let the market decide which farmers succeed, what crops are viable and where the crops are going to be the most successful. Stop blaming blue cities for the failures of rural areas and by all means, if rurals oppose socialism, prove it. Stop taking urban tax money and handing it to red states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Now, educate yourself and remove SS and Medicare from the tally. Seniors have prepaid SS and Medicare tax for decades and are now getting the benefits they were promised. That they're more are likely to retire to red states is irrelevant in the federal tax tally.
Again, those on Food Stamps have the highest obesity rates. And WHO is MUCH more likely to get Food Stamps? No surprise... it's Dems. Ugh...
Should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that consequently, Dems are more poor and more obese than Republicans. They suck up WAY more than their share of federal spending.
So when SNAP benefits are shown to be higher in red states (oops!) we switch to Medicare and Social Security? We know those are underfunded because the beneficiaries get greater benefits than they paid in, right? Medicare and Social Security recipients are the ultimate socialists and they absolutely depend on working taxpayers to fund their benefits. It doesn't matter what they were "promised", they haven't paid for the benefits they receive. In fact, Medicare recipients only pay about a third of the benefits they receive. And that has nothing to do with cities vs. rurals.
It has been shown a thousand times that red states have more obese by magnitudes. Feel free to pretend otherwise. And that same decade old blog post (why keep posting decades old studies?) shows that Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals used food stamps in the same amounts (even then), the reality is low populated red states have the highest food stamp usage which strongly contrasts against cities. Btw, throwing out failed arguments and then changing to a new argument when proven wrong is obvious but feel free to proceed.
Today we have learned the real socialists are Trump supporters, farmers, coal miners, the South, Medicare and Social Security recipients and red states. Blue cities pay for themselves and the rurals too. We need to build a wall.
How do you explain Dems winning elections in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Montana, so on and so forth?
And why can't Rs win AAs, Hispanics, Asians Americans, or Native Americans? Given all the different minority groups and their separate geographic and cultural orientations, why aren't Rs winning any of them?
Who knows? Perhaps they have more free chit to gain maintaining a "victim" status and mentality than actually accomplishing something and providing for themselves and their children?
Why the Dem problem with persistently low wages if their policies are supposedly "better?"
Too many blanket across the board policies everywhere. Dems as well as Reps are equally to praise and blame for it. Suppose we eliminate welfare, handouts, entitlement programs, and everything the conservative Reps want to eliminate. Well you're doing a good favor by releasing the individuals who game the system to their own benefits from habits as addictive as opiods but what about the honest individual who has dreams to own their own business one day but can't even scrap enough money to put food on the table? Someone has to draw a fine line but so far not enough has been done.
Live in an expensive big city and you'll experience it. It's hard to comment on big city dwellers when you're living in a homogenous small town in the middle of the woods where everyone drives, everyone attends the same church, everyone has the same attitudes, and does pretty much the same thing for a living. When you come to realize that people like Donald Trump (who is a big city guy himself and a one time Democrat) charges exorbitant amounts of rent to enrich himself and games the tax system with the protection of high profile attorneys while you're scarcely even able to afford bus fare, then the reality will hit you that you too want a piece of the pie. At one time, upward mobility was easily achievable in cities but not anymore.
We can do poverty rates too and California is #20. Once again, it's the low populated states with the highest poverty rates. Imagine that. First up Mississippi, of course, followed by New Mexico, Louisiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, see a pattern?
In a recent discussion about wages, specifically the average salaries of LE officers, a couple of other posters disputed my claim that police officers in more conservative areas/states earn, generally speaking, less than those in more liberal areas/states (I told them about a former high school classmate who, when he retired a couple of years ago at the age of 50 as Chief of Police in a small, liberal college town (pop 132,000) an hour outside a large liberal metro, earned $250k/yr. Police officers in this same region make an average of $70k/yr).
They went on to say that they'd "never heard of" there being any difference in wages/salaries for any occupations/professions between more liberal and more conservative states/regions. I was just making this up. They really said that.
Interesting info on Dem voters, who are supposedly "more educated" than republicans. As income is correlated with education level, the data on Dems just doesn't pan out that way.
"An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over.
About half of Democrats express satisfaction with their personal financial situation, compared with 61 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Independents."
Why the Dem problem with persistently low wages if their policies are supposedly "better?"
We don't need to use income as a proxy for educational attainment since we already know how people vote based on their level of education. A used car salesman earning $100,000+ per year isn't necessarily college educated.
The more education one receives, the more likely that person is to hold liberal views. This is generally why the most educated and affluent suburbs in the country are trending left. It's also why modern-day conservatives seem to hate higher education so much.
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.
