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
22,181 views 65 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

steven - pot calling kettle.

Like it or not, statistically, people who drop out of high school are by and large the ones who are poor.

It's not arrogance to point out reality.

A look at the poor in American society will give you a very particular household:

1) Single

2) Highschool drop out

3) Had first child before 20.

That doesn't mean all or even most high school drop outs are somehow dumb leeches on society. It means that those who are parasites on society tend to fit a partciular demographic.

Moreover, I have no problem with low-wage workers. They are part of the glue of this country. The problem is the no-wage people.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think its funny how Wardell thinks he knows every thing, about everyone and can paint such a broad stroke with such a narrow brush (or in his case, maybe his mind).

So you have a poll. It shows that Bush gets barely above a majority of voters among new college educated workers; shows the exact opposite for highly educated people; and shows that there is a clear majority from the very poor that votes Democrat.

Something he forgets to think about is that the very poor in this country tends to be Hispanic and Black - and they vote for far more then economic issues; many times they vote for social issues like immigration or racism.

And which party would you listen to: the one telling you that they'll give you a fair chance at education, help you pay your way, then the freedom to achieve the American dream - or the party that says you should pull yourself out of your own poverty that you created - even if you have no clue how to do it and feel like its impossible. SOMETHING ELSE WARDELL DOESN'T EVEN CONSIDER IS THAT MINORITIES HAVE THE LOWEST VOTING TURNOUT OF ANY SET OF CITIZENS IN THIS NATION. This means a great deal. Those minorities and poor people who don't work DON'T EVEN VOTE FOR THE MOST PART. The blacks and lower classes that do vote actually do work - and polls suggest this as fact. Look it up yourself..

I think the choice is easy for voters in that position.

The problem with Democrats is that they hardly follow through on promises anymore. Democrats are not interested in true single-payer universal insurance for medical care, Democrats aren't interested in keeping tuition at very low rates next to free. Democrats aren't interested in making sure cities have proper urban transit systems anymore then Republicans are nowadays.

That's the real problem in the modern day. The Democrats have no teeth anymore, no principle. And that is why I have a problem figuring out who to vote for...

Brad - in another thread you called Democrats "racists" in modern day for "enslaving" the people to government programs. I think you should look who's talking if you are wanting to belittle those on the bottom of the totem pole, and dehumanize them and say that their vote shouldn't count anyway.

You know - its a bit disgusting. I don't believe this way, and I'm not even black, hispanic, or poor... I'm not even eligible for a subsidized loan, let alone a federal pell grant for my college education.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've only read a few messages from you, Brad, and I can already tell you haven't got a grasp on reality in your arguments.

This has *nothing* to do with you on a personal level. But you've outspokenly come on here and given vast generalizations and 50% truths backed up with half-informed polls to try and convey a message.

You can't do this and not expect someone to actually point out the truth. I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican. I believe in a pro-active government economically within a capitalist system; with a government that ensures total social freedoms.

I grew up in the south. I went to college in Memphis for a while - a city in where you are a minority if you are white (which I am).

You know - I know black culture very well, especially after living in Memphis.

The fact is - blacks that don't work - they don't vote at all. They are disinterested in society altogether. The most Democratic blacks I've ever met ALL worked hard, or if unemployed were looking for a job. This is fact, and you should know it.

To think you are so arrogant as to know how to categorize every poor voter as non-working, then give 50% truths to try and prove your claims. Its not only sick, its unethical.

I guess you are a true blue Republican. Hypocrite to the max.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is completely off subject but it seems an appropriate response.

I have always had the greatest respect for people who understand the complexity and nuance of systems - political, social, economic - feedback loops, checks and balances, equilibrium. I am not talking about being simply empathetic. It is rare to find these people, and often times people have an impression that they are always on the fence, or never can commit.

Seeing things in black and white, whether conservative or liberal, is the easy way out.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

I find it rather unfortunate that some people have such poor reading comprension that they come to claim that the opposite was said than was actually said.

What is more sad is that people who disagree with a given point seem inclined to not back up their disagreements with facts but instead emotion. At best, anedotal experiences are put out as if this somehow proves a general trend (even as they condemn me for making generalizations).

I'm an engineer by training. When I look at problems, I look at the numbers. The solution to poverty is to find ways of keeping people in school, keeping them off drugs, and keeping them from getting pregnant before their 21st birthday.

When call such statements as being "arrogant" it's saddening because they are essentially throwing up their hands and say "It's all too complicated to solve."

Let me give you an example:

The fact is - blacks that don't work - they don't vote at all. They are disinterested in society altogether. The most Democratic blacks I've ever met ALL worked hard, or if unemployed were looking for a job. This is fact, and you should know it.

This is a text book case of emotionalism. Just because you insist something is a "Fact" doesn't make it a fact. This is your personal experience. How about telling us what percentage of blacks in that state do vote? How about using quotes to back up your assertion that I somehow implied the the poor don't work? How about quoting to bakc up your assertion that I somehow brought race into it.

It is totally irrelevant whether all the people you have met have "All" worked hard. First, because I never claimed that they don't. I don't know the people you've met. Secondly, as I've stated in this thread, MOST poor people work their butts off. Most Americans work their butts off. Perhaps before rushing to some judgement about me you should read what I write instead of imagining what I write fits some preconceived characterture.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
quoted from Brad:

"I don't pretend to care about fairness in results.. . . I don't care.. . . My greatest fear . . . "

look in the mirror.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

That's a bit incoherent.

I don't care about fairness in results. I only care about fairness of opportunity. Everyone should get a fair shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But people aren't entitled to equality in outcome.

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll go for the fair shot--glad that you think so....If only the conservative wing would think so,too.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I find it rather unfortunate that some people have such poor reading comprension that they come to claim that the opposite was said than was actually said."

Well if you look outside your arrogant, look down upon others because you are automatically better attitude - you may understand I've said repeatedly in several threads that I don't have time to sift through every last word on these forums. I'm taking 20 hours of classes and doing a few things on the side that keeps me quite busy.

You have my opinion, and its unfortunate that you skew statistics and pretend that you know everything from one poll without understanding the facts behind some of those numbers - then yeah, maybe you are the one with a comprehension problem.

You obviously don't speak well to reason. That's the sad part here.

So you are an engineer. I'm in business. I look at statistics and see how they flow on a daily basis myself. If you can't look beyond the technical aspect and into the real world - then your comments don't apply.

Your words are what I call emotional attacks. You candy-coat the surface and say "the poor" consistently vote Democratic. That insinuates that the non-working poor actually vote - when there are substantial facts to back up a claim that they don't vote at all by a vast majority number. You are manipulating the facts so you can milk the tit of your anti-government message without regards to reality. The working poor vote Democratic by majority, as your poll suggests. And even then, they vote less often as is. I don't have time to launch an internet search and research it for hours then give you a response, i've already done that for a class of mine years ago - hence why I know.

Working poor - vote Democrat by majority. Non-working poor - rarely vote at all, and don't vote by majority. Wardell's manipulated message: all poor non-working people are Democrats. Its an easy scare tactic used by right wingers all the time. Use 50% truth in data to prove a pre-ordained message based on ideology - not reason or logic.

But you know, your skewing of the data to interpret it in your pre-ordained ideology just to bash those who see a legitimate role for something, that's pretty sad.

Has nothing to do with emotion. Has to do with reality.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Brad,

but in response to the statement

The votes of the poor, in my view, count no less than the votes of the rich.


you replied

I'm not terribly interested in the demands of some guy sitting on his ass doing nothing but drinking our beer.


That strongly implies that you consider poor people in such light. It may have been an poorly thought or jest comment, but the fact remains that you made it and anyone who accuses you of having no respect for those hard working majority of poor people are in the right. You then go on to say

I find it rather unfortunate that some people have such poor reading comprension that they come to claim that the opposite was said than was actually said.


What are they suppossed to read into your comments? Are you now apologising for the earlier comment and saying that you believe poor people are not all lay abouts? Are you now admitting that non voting poor people are not automatically Democrats as there is no proof that they are?

Paul.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
No. What I am saying is that poor people, regardless of how hard they work, are not paying federal income taxes. Do you understand this? Let me say it again: Poor people do not pay federal income taxes. What you quoted was a portion of an analogy. If the country were a party the poor guy is the one sitting there drinking beer without paying for the party. You are trying (hopefully not intentioally) to extend my analogy to meaning that they don't work. This really isn't a very complicated discussion. I am starting to wonder whether some of you are simply unable to debate the actual point and as a result find the need to throw up strawman after strawman. Poor people, regardless of work, pay no federla income taxes. Any that they do pay comes back to them in the form of a refund. Statistically, government welfare programs go to the poor. That doesn't mean all poor people receive them, but the people receiving government programs are poor. Therefore, I don't see how their vote should count more than the vote for the rich. Second point is that those who are poor tend to vote for Democrats who in turn promise to provde them with more goodies. Note that I did not say every poor person votes for a Democrat. But the statistics are pretty clear here - those who are poor are more likely to vote for Democrats. What I find intellectually dishonest is that no left wingers will simply come out and say "Yea, that's because Democrats promise them more aid." The rich tend to vote for Republicans because Republicans tend to lower their taxes. The difference is that Republicans are simply taking away less of a person's money whereas Democrats are taking money from someone else and handing it to someone else.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
I apologise Brad for mistaking your analogy. It was certainly not intentional and now that you've re-explained it I can see your point.

Your analogy however fails to appreciate that many of the taxes which pay for that party also come from other sources which that poor person does contribute to or have an equal right of (Vat, company tax, natural resources). It is also still suggestive that the poor person doesn't work as opposse to not earning enough.

I do have a problem with poor people paying no taxes. I don't have a problem with them receiving benefits though. I would prefer to see a more transparent system where everyone who worked paid taxes, and everyone who received benefit paid for it in some form or other. Acceptable forms to me would include, previous contributions to social security, raising kids, part time working for government (work for dole programes). More carefully run forms would include disability benefits, health care, pension. In these cases I'd like better checking and serious efforts to bring these people fully into society so they are not fringe unappreciated groups.

Paul.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

Solitair: Bear in mind that my response on that point was to someone who suggested that the votes of the poor should count for more than the votes of the rich.

Let's cut to the chase: If you were to take a survey of voters who are on welfare or are, by whatever definition you care to use, are dependents of the government, who do you think they vote for?

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have a problem with people making less than what the US defines as below the amount necessary to have the basic needs of the individual met paying no taxes? That sounds a little harsh.
And most people on welfare don't vote. Though I do agree, when they vote, they vote democrat. You say that as if it were a bad thing. Perhaps I should start a blog condemning rich people for voting for their party of choice.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent artical...............this is why the democrats have dumbed down the schools, have advocated early sexual activity, etc.