Draginol Draginol

Creating a society of dependents

▼

Creating a society of dependents

A look at Republican and Democrat voter statistics

from JoeUser Forums

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

I tend to be pretty caustic on debates because I don't have much patience for people who confuse their personal experiences or their feelings as facts. I like statistics but I understand why many if not most people stay away from them. Statistics can be manipulated to come about to nearly any conclusion. So it often takes a lot of time and effort to sift through the crap to get to actual meaningful data.

Even exit polls are full of stuff that are useless.  For instance, they talk about things like "What class do you consider yourself part of"  Other than for its psychological value, it is fairly meaningless.  But demographic data is hard to twist.  Things like "How much do you make" or "Are you married". It's very hard to twist that around.

Some stats of interest from the last election.

Are You Married? All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Yes 65 % 44 % 53 % 1 % 2 %
No 35 % 57 % 38 % 0 % 4 %
 

Married people preferred Bush 53 to 38.

 

Vote by Income All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Under $15,000 7 % 57 % 37 % 1 % 4 %
$15-30,000 16 % 54 % 41 % 1 % 3 %
$30-50,000 24 % 49 % 48 % 0 % 2 %
$50-75,000 25 % 46 % 51 % 0 % 2 %
$75-100,000 13 % 45 % 52 % 0 % 2 %
Over $100,000 15 % 43 % 54 % 0 % 2 %
 

People who pay federal taxes (people making over $30k per year -- $28k and below generally get fed taxes back at tax refund time) supported Bush. Only reason why last election was close was because "the poor" overwhelmingly supported Gore.

 

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

Similarly while those in academia overwhelmingly liked Gore, those who just went to college to get out into the real world overwhelmingly liked Bush.

People who didn't even graduate from high school overwhelmingly liked Gore.

You see the correlation though - people who don't finish high school end up poor and need public assistance and end up voting for the candidate of the party promising to take from the producers to give to them.

I don't pretend to care about fairness in results. When someone yelled that Gore won the popular vote, that meant nothing to me. I don't care. Because I knew these stats. The margin for Gore's popular vote came from people who are on the dole. My greatest fear for my country is that over time we will become a nation of dependents. Look at those stats. The people who don't finish high school and end up poor are overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats. Over time, as services creep up into the middle class, you will slowly erode our freedoms and end up with a nation of dependents.  Take the adults who actually work for a living and the election wasn't really that close. Take the people who finished high school on up (Even those in academia) put them together and Bush won there too.

If you go through all the exit polls and start thinking about what the numbers mean you start to get a pretty clear picture of things.  The nation isn't as evenly divided (not in 2000 anyway) as some say. You have a slight but definite majority of those who work for a living, finished high school, and are living responsible lives in support of Bush. And you have a massive majority of those who have made poor choices in life who have their hands out waiting for the government to be their mom voting for Gore. And because there's now enough people who fit into that category, it has the effect of making elections quite close.

Which puts the Democrats in a position of wanting people to fail because as people fail in life, they inevitably become dependents of the government and hence constituents of the Democrats.  The only major exception to that are those in Academia or others who are exquisitely well educated who, in my opinion, are divorced from practical reality who imagine the down-trodden as victims of the rich or victims of powerful interests.

There are lots of ways to fail in life. But if you actually meet 1000 people who fall into the poor/uneducated/dependent category you'll find that the majority of them (if you don't believe this, use Google, this data is readily available) did at least 2 of the following:

1) Got pregnant before marriage

2) Didn't finish high school

3) Became addicted to a controlled substance

Note that I said two, not one. Everyone makes mistakes, but those who end up dependents of the government are typically guilty of having made two of those mistakes.  Sure, there are plenty of exceptions to that (so don't write letters about how your 28 year old friend's husband died leaving her with 4 kids, yes, there are legitimate victims in this). But in generally this is what causes someone to be dependent.

But many people choose not to learn about these things. It's a lot easier to say that Republicans are just a bunch of cold heartless bastards who are so greedy with their money that they don't want to help the downtrodden. The reality is that you will always have a certain percentage of the population that are just..well frankly just a bunch of losers. Throw money at them and they'll squander it and end up losers anyway. And when 60% of federal outlays now are about taking money from one person to give to another, I think it's fair to say that conservatives are already giving a lot.

Let's look at the stats again:

15% of the voters  makes over $100,000. Bush got their votes 54-43. That's a 11% margin (a massive landslide). Those people pay 54% of the federal taxes in this country. Heck, 90+% of the taxes are paid by those who make $50,000 or more which are all overwhelmingly Bush voters.  Like it or not, the picture is pretty darn clear -- the ones who vote for politicians for free goodies are, by and large, not paying for those goodies. They are basically using the federal government as a tool for self-enrichment.  Next time someone calls conservatives greedy, keep that in mind. It's not conservative (generally) voting for politicians promising to confiscate other people's money to hand over to them.

Will the United States eventually become a nation of dependents? It sure seems we're heading down that path. Now we have Bush and the Democrats both trying to outbid one another to hand out freebies to people.

politics
22,182 views 65 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

j-swift: Ideas are cheap. Execution isn't. Democrats have indeed "championed" (if coming up with ideas how to spend other people's money can be called "championed") most programs aimed at helping the poor.

It's just that it tends to be Republicans that end up doing the actual paying. 

If my son comes up with a way to help a neighbor who's having a hard time but I'm the one actually paying for the work. Who's really doing the help?

Poet: Let me try to explain this to you in words you'll understand since you apparently can't make the connection easily. 60% of government outlays currently go to redistribute the wealth. If you don't already know this, there are numerous federal .gov sites that I'm sure you can look this up for yourself. Who do you think receives this wealth?  Let me give you a clue: It's not people earning >$30k per year in income.  The best they can hope for is a tax rebate.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll go you one better. 100% of government spending currently goes to redistribute wealth...

That social worker on the state pay working on the hopeless case with the mother of four who's addicted to heroin.

Those contracts to Halliburton. Heck, the military is one big welfare program providing a subsidized education to minorities!

The entire deparment of transportation grossly subsidizing the retail sector with cheap, efficient roads and air traffic infrastructure

power lines; dams; river dredging; blue-snails; checking for bombs in my shoes at Gate D; only in America would I make sick money doing what I love.

Perhaps my definition of "redistribute" is too generous?
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmmm, Being a champion against gross misuse of statistics, in spite of what Brad says, it seems to me that, yes by gum, the statistics that are presented in fact do not prove any of Brad's points! Sorry to say, but I'm agreeing with the post that claims a difference of 1-3% between right-left is not statistically relevant. Alright, there may be more statistics being kept on the sidelines, but what exactly is your point? The wealthy pay for programs to benefit the poor? Good God No! You mean because poor people can't afford expensive rehab places like certain people sitting in the office of the president for himself and his daughters and neices we should cut them off? Or perhaps we should eliminate food stamps? Never mind a good number of people on food stamps are actually employed? And we should cut off mental patients at the state hospitals because they're not rich enough to pay for their own treatment? Or welfare, hmmm, a dicey issue to be sure, but since new regulations have come into affect, it's a lot harder to be a welfare mom with thirty kids collecting a check. For goodness sake, all of you, show some human kindness here. But then again, perhaps thats the reason why the government has to do it. Because certain well off people are unwilling to do it voluntarily....
And by the by, another one of the stats on that page proves that the Republican party is run by White Men.
Cheers
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I got to say that I loved this stat enough to share it though. Now why wasn't it included in the original presentation of numbers?

Lieberman Religion Make Him All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Better V.P. 17 % 61 % 36 % 1 % 1 %
Worse V.P. 8 % 22 % 72 % 0 % 5 %
No Effect 72 % 49 % 47 % 0 % 3 %

and of course I can't figure out how to get it to fit right, but it's still a good statistic.
Cheers
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like what swift had to say originally. Too bad he/she had to remind us that it wasn't a serious suggestion. *le sigh*

Brad was right about the ways of 'failing in life'. Usually those who do get pregnant before marriage, don't finish high school, and become addicted to a controlled substance.
And usually one leads to the other. Controlled substance abuse leads to pregnant before marriage, then don't finish high school..And unless they turn their lives around..and work HARD to make up for lost time..they end up the poor uneducated hate mongering welfare receipiants that are absorbing precious OXYGEN from the rest of us.
Don't hate people because of race, gender, or creed..but hate them for being the absolute lowlifes who never ::try:: to rise up to something better..and then perpetuate the cycle by breeding more..and teaching their children it's okay to be that way. Those are the lowlifes...(they rarely vote, don't they?) who bring us all down.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can anyone provide stats on how many children an average household on welfare as opposed to the number of children in a home of the upperclass?

We'll become a nation of dependents simply because the Have Nots breed faster than the Haves.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unless you are assuming people lied, I can't see how you can argue that how much someone makes or whether they are married or not is subjective.

That is why I chose those particular statistics - they are statements of fact.

It is unfortunate that those who disagree with my conclusions seem incapable of putting forth a coherent counter-argument.

My entire thesis essentially is this: Most people who are not working at all or very much, regardless of the reasons, tend to vote for Democrats. People with little income are also the ones who receive the bulk of welfare handouts in various forms. Those who pay the taxes tend to be Republican.

It is pretty hard to see how someone can dispute this but I welcome them to try. But hearing people whining or trying to redefine the statistics into some make believe world of fantasy is not compelling and reeks of desperation in my view.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
PoetPhilosopher wrote: Heck, the military is one big welfare program providing a subsidized education to minorities!

I'm going to take a stab in the dark, but you served in the military when? You know how many people serving in the military? You know how many people that have in the past served in the military? Having a high school education is the rule and not the exception to serve in the US military, and most personnel have at least some higher education beyond that.

Now you are entitled to your own opinion, but I would love to know what information that you have to back up your statement? Please feel free to remove my ignorance with your enlightenment.

goes back to the basement.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Grog: Totally agree. What amazes me is how many people will just spew out ignorance. There are many things people may not know about but knowing that virtually (if not every single person) all people in the military have at least a high school diploma is not exactly obscure information.

There's such a discouraging amount of intellectual laziness that goes on in comments. People who assert things that aren't just false but known to be false by anyone who's even remotely familiar with the subject matter.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
The people in the military also actually serve a purpose and earn their keep, so it's not as if they're getting paid for nothing.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Grog:

My sighting the military was a convienient example, but I would *never* pass up the opportunity to enlighten, so I'll do my best

If you are looking for anecdotes:

A) I have no need for military service as I am educated!
B) I have a very close friend who served five years in the Navy. He went after graduating college, and has since gone back to get his masters.
C) I have another friend who served for the PURPOSE of getting his education payed for and now he is quite happy working at a Nuclear Plant, although there are limited places he can work.
D) Father, grandfather, uncle, father-in law.

But of course extrapolating from ones personal experiences, while comforting, doesn't always give the big picture - and besides, the debate isn't about ME!

If you are really interested, and probably you'll skip over this link - there are a great deal of tasty tidbits in this article:

http://www.notinourname.net/resources_links/soft-econ-recruiting-16sep03.htm

Give it a read when the commercials are on.

Messy Buu: Indeed! They, like politicians, postal workers, welfare case workers, and the army of bureaucrats that processes my 1040 every year are being paid by the goverment to do a job. And admittedly as Brad pointed out - most of this money comes from the rich, and most of these workers are in fact lower income.. -> Income Redistribution. Right ? Help me - what am I missin?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
You do understand the difference between earning money from working and welfare, right? I don't see what service welfare recipients are providing to earn their checks.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poet Philosopher wrote:
A) I have no need for military service as I am educated


That statement I think is one of the saddest things that I have heard in a long long time. If you think that there is no reason to SERVE your country because you are educated, is just plain ignorant. Service is not an uneducated decision; it is a moral decision that is not for everyone, but that is an individual right of choice. If we who serve in our military are so uneducated how about you tell us how you can do away with the military and then we can lead more honorable and educated lives? Ok don't take my word for it, ask your Father, Grandfather, Uncle, and Father in-law what they think, and show them what you have written, or are you afraid that you might not like what they have to say. It is your right to not have to lift a finger to serve your country in any capacity, but that does not make it an educated or moral stance. As far as that link that you so thoughtfully provided, you might just want to take some time and actually read it. There is an old saying that I think fits you....... "Freedom has a taste, that the Protected will never know" So please feel free to live your life as you wish, bathed in the warm fuzzy educated knowledge that we the uneducated barbarians are standing on the walls guarding you and your family.

Oh and one last thing I don't understand, why would I have to read that article while the commercials are on? It read just fine without a TV on..........

goes back to the basement.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? C'mon folks.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poet seems to have missed the point - welfare is getting something for nothing.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Any way, the point being - the only reason why these elections are even remotely close is because those who tend not to pay taxes and haven't even finished high school vote Democrat by huge margins (i.e. 20 points). You take away that...constituency and it's not even close.

Personally I would favor a system in which in order to vote you have to pay at least $250 in federal income taxes each year. Like an association fee in a neighborhood. Or some system like that so that each person had at least a small stake in the US treasury and could then care how that money is being spent.  I mean right now of course the poorest people vote for Democrats, they promise all kinds of free goodies in return and since they aren't paying into the system, more power to them.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad:

First, I think that you've interpreted the Marriage Statistic incorrectly. ("Married people preferred Bush 53 to 38.") It should be %3% of married people favored Bush (Compared to 44% of married people favoring Gore.)

Secondly, I think it is quite obvious that less wealthy people favor Democrats and more wealthy people favor Republicans. But I don't think extending this observation to imply that wealthy people somehow choose better leaders has any merit. Less wealthy people are no less meritorious. They simply have lower-paying salaries, in many instances because of their personal choice of profession. (Most scientists, teachers, musicians, and soldiers for instance make far less than a successful businessman.)

Thirdly, I find it very obvious that the richest taxpayers pay more of the total tax revenue than their equivalent population percentage. They earn, after all, a disportionate amount of the total wealth.

Fourthly, when citing statistics, can you please give standard deviations?

The votes of the poor, in my view, count no less than the votes of the rich. In fact, I think we should listen to them more closely than those of the rich. (I subscrbe to the principle that a society is best judged by how they treat their poor. By the way, if anyone knows who originally articulated this idea, let me know. I know it is a part of Catholic Social Teaching, but I'm not sure if that's where it originates from.)

Yes, there are some people in our society who are lazy and abuse the system. But from my experience, they seem to come from all sectors of society--rich and poor. Examples from the wealthy sector of the United States, not only includes recent events like Enron and WorldCom, the Savings and Loans scandals of the 1980s, which cost the federal taxpayers $132 billion. (Hmm...I wonder what percentage of those involved voted Republican?) To me, abusing the system when you are wealthy is much worse than living off a meager welfare check. By the way, Federal Welfare was abolished in 1996 by President Clinton (Which party is he from?), and it is no longer the norm for families to stay on welfare without a job for extended periods of time.

Brad, from the little I know about your background, you are a successful and gifted businessman. I wish you would write more about how you can use those gifts to help the poor, rather than criticizing their political affiliations.

Best,

-rob
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Secondly, I think it is quite obvious that less wealthy people favor Democrats and more wealthy people favor Republicans. But I don't think extending this observation to imply that wealthy people somehow choose better leaders has any merit. Less wealthy people are no less meritorious. They simply have lower-paying salaries, in many instances because of their personal choice of profession. (Most scientists, teachers, musicians, and soldiers for instance make far less than a successful businessman.)

At no time did I imply that one group chose better leaders. "better" is pretty subjective and pointless to debate. (you're right about the marriage stat, was reading down instead of left/right).

Thirdly, I find it very obvious that the richest taxpayers pay more of the total tax revenue than their equivalent population percentage. They earn, after all, a disportionate amount of the total wealth.

Certainly. I wasn't commenting that such a system is wrong btw.  I happen to favor a tax system that taxes the rich more so, even as a percentage of income, than others.

Fourthly, when citing statistics, can you please give standard deviations?

Why?

The votes of the poor, in my view, count no less than the votes of the rich. In fact, I think we should listen to them more closely than those of the rich. (I subscrbe to the principle that a society is best judged by how they treat their poor. By the way, if anyone knows who originally articulated this idea, let me know. I know it is a part of Catholic Social Teaching, but I'm not sure if that's where it originates from.)

We disagree obviously.   If you and me and our friends are building a house together, I'm not terribly interested in the demands of some guy sitting on his ass doing nothing but drinking our beer.

Yes, there are some people in our society who are lazy and abuse the system. But from my experience, they seem to come from all sectors of society--rich and poor. Examples from the wealthy sector of the United States, not only includes recent events like Enron and WorldCom, the Savings and Loans scandals of the 1980s, which cost the federal taxpayers $132 billion. (Hmm...I wonder what percentage of those involved voted Republican?) To me, abusing the system when you are wealthy is much worse than living off a meager welfare check. By the way, Federal Welfare was abolished in 1996 by President Clinton (Which party is he from?), and it is no longer the norm for families to stay on welfare without a job for extended periods of time.

I agree with much of this. People like Ken Lay should spend the rest of their lives in jail. But in terms of number of people, those not paying any federal taxes (40% of the adult population) vastly outweigh the highlighted cases of rich people screwing the rest of us.

Federal welfare is a lot more than AFDC btw. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are welfare programs too for most people using them. They are popular because they give the appearance of not being a hand out because its beneficiaries have typically paid nominally into it. That is where 60% of the federal budget goes.

Welfare reform was not abolished by Clinton. We don't live in a land of kings. It was abolished by the Republican congress and Clinton didn't veto it.

Brad, from the little I know about your background, you are a successful and gifted businessman. I wish you would write more about how you can use those gifts to help the poor, rather than criticizing their political affiliations.

Words are cheap. Actions matter. Those who know me personally have seen my actions.  What I've done in business is try to bring opportunity to those who have native talent but not the opportunity to make good use of it. 

I don't have sympathy for people who want something for nothing. It is just stastistically telling that those who do want something for nothing tend to vote for Democrats.

 

 

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
some guy sitting on his ass doing nothing but drinking our beer.


does NOT equal poor. Very insulting statement. Poor is usually defined as living below the poverty line (which is itself defined seperately for each country based on income required to achieve a particular level of comfort). The vast majority of 'poor' people would not match your statement above. I'll assume from the earlier smile that this statement was in jest.

Some general questions about the US

a) What salary do people have to earn before they pay federal taxes?
b) What fraction of these 40% not paying taxes do indeed work and try to make a living?
c) Where do house wifes/husbands come into this category?
d) How much money is lost each year due to corruption from the rich (including companies) versus from the poor (defrauding the system)?

To me as an outsider it looks like a lot of the problem is related to a complicated tax / social welfare system. A simplified system (with everyone paying tax or service) would reveal the true split between those who actually work and those that just milk the system. I would be strongly in favour of unemployed people having to give X number of days a week towards a federal work program in return for social security benefit. Over time that number would increase and could become a permanent job with a full time wage if they cannot find another job. I am in favour of free basic medical care for everyone.

To me it looks like the problem is that people lump every single poor people with those who milk the system. Poor people tend to have the same problem with rich people seeing them as milking the tax system and being corrupt.

Paul.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
The majority of those on welfare are children. Should they starve. Most of the parents on welfare are single and have few jobs skills. The type of work they do is not sufficient to earn both childcare and enough to pay rent and food. If they work two or three jobs, who cares for the children?
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

Show me Americans starving, Sherye. Feel free to present evidence for this.  Feel free to show evidence of thousands of small children living on the streets.

None of which has anything to do with the argument I put forth in my article. People who become dependent on the government tend to vote for people whose policies will lead to the creation of more dependents. Add some time to the mix and you end up with a large percentage of society dependent on the government.

Every American already gets basic medical care, btw. Any person in the United States can go to an emergency room and be treated -- for free, regardless of their income. This exists today.  The problem is the term "Basic" keeps being upgraded. Now basic apparently means health insurance for getting free anti-biotics, prenatal care, heart surgery, etc.

Why do I get the feeling that in 50 years some holographic blog site will have people arguing how everyone needs a personal trainer?

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2002, 34.9 million Americans lived in households experiencing "food insecurity" - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - an increase of more than 3 million people since 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)

-rob

(Source: http://povertyusa.org)
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad Wardell- Call me an optimist, but maybe we don't have to create a society of dependents. Maybe we can create a society that resembles the way Native American villages were. Where my neighbor would never go hungry while I sat eating. Where the village was one village, one people. Maybe I'm more of a dreamer than an optimist! (welcome to Candy's world)
I have a problem with statistics. I admit to picturing the people that read them staying in their offices and homes and never coming into the real world. I'd much rather see them reading Winnie The Pooh books.
A lot of people on welfare are single mothers. Their time on welfare is limited and they work for the money while their children under school age stay in Welfare daycares.
I have a hard time on voting days. I vote Independent. (sometimes just to be persnickety, I close my eyes and just point)
There are hungry children in American and I'm thinking the only way to prove that to some of you is for me to bring to some of these kids
to your houses for supper. You can email me your addresses.
And there is a subject that I've been hesitant in writing about, because it is a tender subject to me. SSI and Medicare. That is no doubt that some in need of it have never contributed to it, and you can think of it as another Welfare program. My daughter never had the chance to contribute before she needed it. And if I kept taking her to emergency rooms for free treatment, it would've been much more expensive to you, believe me. She was born with a chronic illness that creates many other health problems. I freely admit to needing help taking care of her medical bills and getting her prescriptions. And you bet I'm grateful that there is this form of help. Tender subject, but I'm ready.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wardell arrogance par excellence! You are a purposeful antagonizer simply to keep your points in the statosphere. How you could be so self-righteous to think that drop-outs are ignorami, forgetting that we are talking about minorities, senior citizens, and new citizens. That post-grad people are liberal is not so much a matter of intelligence but that they have more leisurely time to really study statistics and political science to come up with sensible decisions, not rubbish like yours. You keep harping on this nonsense of enslavement and dependence as though the downtrodden wish it that way. You never consider the trauma one goes through when he's told his job has been sent overseas, you don't reflect on what it might be like for a young girl impregnated and having to go it alone, you have no feeling for the seniors who have to decide on prescriptions or food on the table, when was the last time you had something nice to say about all the low paying workers that really keep this nation going, though they may not have the good fortune of an education, or help from parents who are well off? Your stats on taxes mean nothing when you do not include the regressive payroll and state sales tax the average are saddled with. Furthermore, I have never seen you come up with a stat that shows how much after tax income the higher bracket is allowed to keep in contrast to the paltry sum that the "lowlifers" have to struggle with. And you call yourself an independent and haven't yet decided on whom you will vote for!--give me a break.