No, "We all" don't.
There is a huge number of people who do not pay anything into the system. These are great constituents, because their vote can be bought by offering them benefits out of the public coffers which someone else pays for.
No, "We all" don't.
There is a huge number of people who do not pay anything into the system. These are great constituents, because their vote can be bought by offering them benefits out of the public coffers which someone else pays for.
SVreX wrote: No, "We all" don't. There is a huge number of people who do not pay anything into the system. These are great constituents, because their vote can be bought by offering them benefits out of the public coffers which someone else pays for.
Actually they're really bad constituents, because they do not vote at anywhere near the rates other income strata do. People who make less than $20k a year and do not pay taxes? They voted at a less than 51.9% rate in the 2008 election. People that make $50-75k? They voted at a 70.9% rate. Make over $100k and you voted at a 91.8% rate. And this was a presidential election where the candidate was Barack Obama, and saw record turnouts.
I can tell you first hand that the vast majority of our health care in this country is explicitly paid for by taxes already through Medicare and Medicaid. A huge chunk of the remainder is implicitly paid for by those programs, as uninsured patients increase the burden of cost on the hospital's side, increasing the cost of medical care for those who do pay.
Fact is, we already have socialized medicine. We have for decades.
Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ&feature=g-vrec&context=G212a37aRVAAAAAAAACw
A history lesson rife with truth, sarcasm, some speculation and humour.
SVreX wrote: No, "We all" don't. There is a huge number of people who do not pay anything into the system. These are great constituents, because their vote can be bought by offering them benefits out of the public coffers which someone else pays for.
Ok, those of us who pay taxes, better?
I'm saying that since, those of us who pay taxes, are already paying for them, lets find a more cost effective way of doing so than ERs and the like.
4cylndrfury wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: *Ok, I will bite* So, go GET A JOB...so you either get insurance offered as a benefit, or you can now go get some on your own.
It was worth a shot, but I'll be smart enough to get out now. People just get so angry when you try to say anything, even if you try to say it without all the inflammatory rhetoric.
This is a perfect example. I know good, hard working people who are out of work or have been out of work in the last few years. I also have a good friend who has good job, but lost his home and declared bankruptcy due to the fact that they have a child with serious medical issues and expenses. It's easy for those of us who have never had those problems to say "get a job".
I am in that same boat. While I did not lose the place I live in and I do not have a sick kid.. I have not held a full time job since the recession hit. I make enough to get by, but aside from a few weeks where I work full time between a couple of different theatres, mostly it is 20 hours or les a week
fast_eddie_72 wrote:oldsaw wrote: Minorities tend to side with Democrats because they perceive Republicans as the "side" that will take away what they have been given.I would point out that this includes things like emaciation, citizenship, the right to vote, legal protection from discrimination, access to medical care and the right to serve their country in the armed forces. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't be in great shape by no fault of their own if the government stayed out of their lives.
You're probably too young to remember, so I'll give you a pass on this one... Look up what the south was like when it voted mostly Democrat, then get back to us. And while you're at it, maybe you could tell us why Dr. King was a registered Republican.
well.. the sides have changed over the years... just look at the past 20. Do you really think Reagan could get the nomination and win the election in today's emviroment?
racerfink wrote: You're probably too young to remember, so I'll give you a pass on this one... Look up what the south was like when it voted mostly Democrat, then get back to us. And while you're at it, maybe you could tell us why Dr. King was a registered Republican.
No, no, I know exactly. I said nowhere that Democrats gave them all of those things. It was observed, not by me, that the perception is that Democrats are the party less likely to take those things away. I think it is accurate to say that those are positive ways that government has been involved in people's lives. One party has made it a point to say they want to keep government out of your life and some of it's members speak specifically about these issues in that context.
As for MLK, I know SR. was a Republican and supported Nixon, but switched his support to Kennedy after Robert stepped in and helped in a sticky situation in Atlanta. I don't know of any documentation that Jr. was a Republican, but I wouldn't doubt it, at least early on. But, as you say, the parties were much different then. As we've discussed, minorities tend to support Democrats in overwhelming numbers today. I doubt that would have been the case in those days- there were some very overt racist Democrats, particularly in the South at that time.
No, this is more nonsense- pretending that the historical position of the parties is representative of their current positions. Lincoln was a Republican who fought a war to take "rights" away from southern states. Would you say that the Republicans today are the party of Federal power above State power? If you look at the origin of the Republican party, it came into existence largely due to moral opposition to slavery. If things hadn't changed, why would minorities so overwhelmingly support Democrats today?
Only responded since I was specifically referenced. With that I'll bid you all good day. Honestly just don't want to make anyone angry.
The easiest way to enslave people, is to make them dependent. And that's exactly what the Dems have done to minorities in this country. Almost like a drug dealer...
Stealthtercel wrote: I don't know if y'all want to hear from a Canadian, but please don't forget that a sizeable number of people voted for Obama because he wasn't McCain, and because his Vice President wasn't going to be Sarah Palin. Read David Plouffe's book if you want some insights into how the public responded to the McCain campaign's various stumbles and gaffes, including the way people reacted to Sarah Palin's Big Speech – the Obama campaign was getting thousands and thousands of new dollars every second while she spoke. At least part of the Great American Public was saying, "We may not be totally in love with This, but we sure as hell don't want That." And that's politics.
I would buy that. The catch is though, that the same people who forced McCain to pick Palin are the ones who have declared that Romney is the guy.
DILYSI Dave wrote:Stealthtercel wrote: I don't know if y'all want to hear from a Canadian, but please don't forget that a sizeable number of people voted for Obama because he wasn't McCain, and because his Vice President wasn't going to be Sarah Palin. Read David Plouffe's book if you want some insights into how the public responded to the McCain campaign's various stumbles and gaffes, including the way people reacted to Sarah Palin's Big Speech – the Obama campaign was getting thousands and thousands of new dollars every second while she spoke. At least part of the Great American Public was saying, "We may not be totally in love with This, but we sure as hell don't want That." And that's politics.I would buy that. The catch is though, that the same people who forced McCain to pick Palin are the ones who have declared that Romney is the guy.
IF McCain had gotten the nomination instead of George W.. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. As for Palin, well, Bachman actually made her look like a decent proposition
bastomatic wrote: Actually they're really bad constituents, because they do not vote at anywhere near the rates other income strata do. People who make less than $20k a year and do not pay taxes? They voted at a less than 51.9% rate in the 2008 election. People that make $50-75k? They voted at a 70.9% rate. Make over $100k and you voted at a 91.8% rate.
I'm sorry, but again while factually accurate, it is a meaningless observation without giving it context.
Here's a thought; in any group there is a threshold of participation relative to the size of the group. If you belong to the group that makes $100k more a year annually, how big a company do you think you keep? Its only around 5% of people who pay income taxes.
Even if the people who after tax credits pay no income tax or receive money voted in the %20 figure of their demographic, it would still ridiculously outnumber the $100k plusers.
WilberM3 wrote: i'd like to see us actually TRY real free-market driven capitalism before we say it isnt working.
Every time I see something like that, I think about Somalia.
They're living the dream of a free-market economy over there.
In reply to Brett_Murphy:
That is exactly what I was thinking when I read it, pretty much any third world nation is pure capitalism in action.
Otto:
They have a super small government, too!
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Brett_Murphy: That is exactly what I was thinking when I read it, pretty much any third world nation is pure capitalism in action.
You two should pay more attention to free-marketer Milton Friedman instead of cracking wise.
In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian. - Milton Friedman
So, even Friedman didn't see economic policy in black and white. Hell, the Austrian camp (Ron Paul's heroes) think Friedman was a flaming liberal.
I just can't wait for the general election. This thread absolutely supports the fact that ignorance and racism is the base of the GOP. Can't wait for them to be destroyed when the rest of the country gets to have their say.
Sickening. Absolutely sickening
Brett_Murphy wrote:WilberM3 wrote: i'd like to see us actually TRY real free-market driven capitalism before we say it isnt working.Every time I see something like that, I think about Somalia. They're living the dream of a free-market economy over there.
Ummmmm, methinks you need a refresher course on what capitalism actually IS. Last I heard, capitalism included property rights that didn't depend on which way the AK-47 was pointing.
Brett_Murphy wrote:WilberM3 wrote: i'd like to see us actually TRY real free-market driven capitalism before we say it isnt working.Every time I see something like that, I think about Somalia. They're living the dream of a free-market economy over there.
Anarchy =/= free market Capitalism. That's kind of a ridiculous thing to even suggest regardless of whether or not you think a true free market system is a good idea. Personally, I think it would be to exploitative, but it doesn't matter because it'll never happen.
In reply to MG Bryan
Capitalism is an economic system. Anarchism is a political system. So, you are right. They don't equal each other.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to MG Bryan Capitalism is an economic system. Anarchism is a political system. So, you are right. They don't equal each other.
Robbin' and stealin', in literal terms, only go unregulated in a state of anarchy since such activities have more than an economic effect. Somalia, as a result, makes no sense as an example of unregulated capitalism. It was just a nonsensical comment.
There are plenty of reasonable arguments against free-market capitalism. It would be better to turn to those if you don't like the concept.
Are you talking about the pirates? That is a separate issue.
I meant more like the general populace. They have huge income disparity. The lower economic strata (basically everyone) has no chance to improve their lot in life because the upper economic strata has all the money, all the means of production, everything. The rich have no need for violence to get more money. They don't pull out an AK-47 and rob some duded with a distended belly. The free market has just allotted all the capital of the society to a few people.
Otto Maddox wrote: Are you talking about the pirates? That is a separate issue. I meant more like the general populace. They have huge income disparity. The lower economic strata (basically everyone) has no chance to improve their lot in life because the upper economic strata has all the money, all the means of production, everything. The rich have no need for violence to get more money. They don't pull out an AK-47 and rob some duded with a distended belly. The free market has just allotted all the capital of the society to a few people.
No, I'm talking about that fact that the upper strata you refer to are warlords. Forming a militia and taking things by force isn't an economic strategy. They seize food and aid shipments. They control everything with gross force. It's not economics.
Somalia is just a really poor example to use. I'd hazard the suggestion that there is more purely economic exploitation in South East Asia than in Africa.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
