And, we also landed on the moon.

Our deficit is very large as a percentage of GDP because, in large part, a growth in food stamp outlays. Apparently most of that growth is coming from red counties who overwhelmingly voted for Romney/Ryan who railed against things like food stamps, etc.

How can dems be "buying votes" when most of the beneficiaries of their providence are voting against them? Most the people "taking free stuff' as O'Reilly said, seem to vote for candidates who lament those who "take free stuff"


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html


I thought this analysis from the Heritage Foundation was interesting lol

“We’re talking about people who got pretty hammered by the economic meltdown,” he said. “It’s a temporary hand-up, not a permanent condition of life. They’ve gotten help, but it’s been something they’ve requested very reluctantly.”

Strange that they don't feel that way about folks in blue counties who use the welfare state. Hmmmmm lol

Well anyway, it is a good thing our country has a strong welfare state to keep these conservative communities afloat during depressed economic times.

And your point is what? Too many people rely on welfare state? Not shocking honestly. All the talk is about how to fund the welfare state instead of how to create an environment where it's not needed.

Heavily Red counties that still have 5-10% people voting for Obama. Those are your welfare dependents; all Democrats.

There are Republicans on welfare. Many Republicans believe that too many people are on welfare. They don't contradict each other.

Con_Alma;1336810 wrote:There are Republicans on welfare. Many Republicans believe that too many people are on welfare. They don't contradict each other.

Exactly. It's no different than my believing that many tax deductions can be eliminated while claiming them on my return. A false claim of hypocrisy by an intellectual lightweight.

queencitybuckeye;1336817 wrote:Exactly. It's no different than my believing that many tax deductions can be eliminated while claiming them on my return. A false claim of hypocrisy by an intellectual lightweight.

My claim...inferred from my question in line with the Politics board rules...is that this reality may serve as evidence against the claim that democrats primarily obtain power by "buying" support from their voters through social transfers as a large portion of those beneficiaries of those transfers nevertheless vote for people who would rather those benefits not exist.

Following that I reflect on the Heritage Foundation's characterizing red-county food stamp beneficiaries as desiring a "hand-up" as opposed to a "hand-out."

I conclude with a supportive statement for our current welfare state.

There is no allegation of hypocrisy that could reasonably be gleaned from my post without an invalid inference to that effect from the reader. lol. Perhaps you are projecting?

A reasonable reply to the post's primary claim might have been "Well Boatshoes, perhaps these newer users in red counties are mad about being on food stamps having previously been employed and blamed Obama for it and that is why they voted for Romney?" Who knows, that might've yielded an interesting discussion?

But, I suppose calling people fancy forms of stupid is the natural response for those non-intellectual lightweights among us :thumbup:

pmoney25;1336801 wrote:And your point is what? Too many people rely on welfare state? Not shocking honestly. All the talk is about how to fund the welfare state instead of how to create an environment where it's not needed.

Point 1: Looks like there may be evidence that the argument that liberals win by buying votes through social transfers could be wrong

Point 2: Looks like conservative think tanks characterize the use of the welfare state by largely Republican counties differently than they do use of the welfare state in largely democratic counties

Point 3: The welfare state and its automatic stabilizers are a good thing because they improve the quality of life for those who are unemployed in bad economic times even if the beneficiaries have a moral or philosophical objection to it.

Welfare hardy improves the quality of life. At best, it keeps it form being worse if it were not in place and the recipient did not become employed.

The above comments are far from disproving that liberal minded people are not more inclined to vote for a President who leans towards not reducing social programs as opposed to voting for one who has been ostracized as someone considering a reduction in such services.

BoatShoes;1336853 wrote:My claim...inferred from my question in line with the Politics board rules...is that this reality may serve as evidence against the claim that democrats primarily obtain power by "buying" support from their voters through social transfers as a large portion of those beneficiaries of those transfers nevertheless vote for people who would rather those benefits not exist.

Following that I reflect on the Heritage Foundation's characterizing red-county food stamp beneficiaries as desiring a "hand-up" as opposed to a "hand-out."

I conclude with a supportive statement for our current welfare state.

There is no allegation of hypocrisy that could reasonably be gleaned from my post without an invalid inference to that effect from the reader. lol. Perhaps you are projecting?

A reasonable reply to the post's primary claim might have been "Well Boatshoes, perhaps these newer users in red counties are mad about being on food stamps having previously been employed and blamed Obama for it and that is why they voted for Romney?" Who knows, that might've yielded an interesting discussion?

But, I suppose calling people fancy forms of stupid is the natural response for those non-intellectual lightweights among us :thumbup:

Why are you quoting me? My response had nothing at all to do with anything you posted, save the original link.

What a left-wig hit piece. There is not factual evidence provided in that article that directly supports the writer's claim.

"Fastest growing" is also misleading as to the magnitude of the problem - 48 households to 228 households?!? While I bet if you go to the inner city in Chicago the number went from like 150,000 households to 250,000.

gut;1336965 wrote:What a left-wig hit piece. There is not factual evidence provided in that article that directly supports the writer's claim.

"Fastest growing" is also misleading as to the magnitude of the problem - 48 households to 228 households?!? While I bet if you go to the inner city in Chicago the number went from like 150,000 households to 250,000.

Stop it; the progressive marxists detest those who go behind the data to reveal the truth.

Looks like there may be evidence that the argument that liberals win by buying votes through social transfers could be wrong

:laugh:...actually it looks like they might be right.:laugh:

Detroit councilwoman JoAnn Watson wants Barack to send the 'bacon' in exchange for Detroit overwhelmingly supporting him. It's "quid pro quo" according to her!
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/12/joann-watson-detroit-councilwoman-to.html

...complete with the video...(it's not surrepticiously obtained either)! Will BHO welsh on his obligation?

That video is pathetic, and hilarious.

But I thought they already bailed out and saved Detroit???

queencitybuckeye;1336890 wrote:Why are you quoting me? My response had nothing at all to do with anything you posted, save the original link.

Don't really see any allegations of hypocrisy in the original link so I thought you were suggesting that I, being the OP, as opposed to the author, was the intellectual lightweight alleging hypocrisy. I suppose I'm vain for thinking you were insulting me as opposed to the author Maybe I'm a bad reader

The video of Detroit councilwoman JoAnn Watson's " Obama...Bring us the bacon" rant has hit the airwaves as the President plans a stop in Detroit this week. JoAnn demands with righteous indignation "quid pro quo" for delivering the city into Obama's camp in the election....Will the magic one be Detriot's saviour and bail the city out?


Check the video posted above....and laugh at the audacity:laugh:

...or cry for what we as a nation have become.

HitsRus;1338542 wrote:The video of Detroit councilwoman JoAnn Watson's " Obama...Bring us the bacon" rant has hit the airwaves as the President plans a stop in Detroit this week. JoAnn demands with righteous indignation "quid pro quo" for delivering the city into Obama's camp in the election....Will the magic one be Detriot's saviour and bail the city out?


Check the video posted above....and laugh at the audacity:laugh:

...or cry for what we as a nation have become.

I prefer to be appalled. But we voted for it. So let it be written, so let it be done.

BoatShoes;1336853 wrote:My claim...inferred from my question in line with the Politics board rules...is that this reality may serve as evidence against the claim that democrats primarily obtain power by "buying" support from their voters through social transfers as a large portion of those beneficiaries of those transfers nevertheless vote for people who would rather those benefits not exist.

Following that I reflect on the Heritage Foundation's characterizing red-county food stamp beneficiaries as desiring a "hand-up" as opposed to a "hand-out."

I conclude with a supportive statement for our current welfare state.

There is no allegation of hypocrisy that could reasonably be gleaned from my post without an invalid inference to that effect from the reader. lol. Perhaps you are projecting?

A reasonable reply to the post's primary claim might have been "Well Boatshoes, perhaps these newer users in red counties are mad about being on food stamps having previously been employed and blamed Obama for it and that is why they voted for Romney?" Who knows, that might've yielded an interesting discussion?

But, I suppose calling people fancy forms of stupid is the natural response for those non-intellectual lightweights among us :thumbup:

I made the mistake of reading this a few times, and none of it makes sense.

People discussed the link's fallacy already - if there is an increase from 50 to 250 it is a huge percentage increase, but likely irrelevant. If there is an increase from 20,000, to 22,000, the percentage is certainly less dramatic, but evidences a greater problem.

believer;1338626 wrote:I prefer to be appalled. But we voted for it. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Ben Franklin comes to mind:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

In my humble unenlightened opinion, we have crossed that line.

http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

jhay78;1339945 wrote:In my humble unenlightened opinion, we have crossed that line.

indeed