Open forums are a place for debate. That's really all this is about. A position is shared, there isn't much analysis, and the position is debated.
Today's topic: Mitt Romney's comments about the 47% of people that will not vote for him. I'm sure if you've turned on the TV or logged onto a news website today you've heard the latest. You were probably met with headlines of "Mitt Romney claims Obama supporters feel 'entitled'" or something along those lines. To get straight to the source, here are the videos from the socialist publication Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
The biggest quote that is making its way through the headlines:
- "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Of course, the typical outlets have jumped on this, instantly crying foul while making the world of this issue. Mitt Romney, in an attempt to clear the air, did not apologize when speaking to reporters last night, and in fact, he reinforced his position about government dependency:
- "It's not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I was speaking off the cuff in response to a question," Romney said, adding he wants to help "all Americans... It's a message which I am going to carry and continue to carry, which is that the president's approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes because frankly my discussion about lowering taxes isn't as attractive to them. Therefore I'm not likely to draw them into my campaign as effectively as those in the middle."
My opinion, briefly... to kick off the discussion:
First, Mitt Romney is right. Well, actually, fewer Americans pay income tax than even he stated (write-up)... but that's irrelevant. Mitt Romney is simply stating something I truly believe in: democracy is being raped and perverted by politicians who are getting elected by promising to give voters stuff. I believe in a truly "vanilla," non-discriminatory government where everyone should be treated the same. My blood boils when I hear a large voting bloc being pandered to with the promise of "me and my party will give you free housing, food, unemployment benefits, health care, subsidized everything, and a lower tax burden, all paid for by a very small voting bloc." Was this the original intent of democracy? To simply have politicians hold power by offering those that elect them free things? No! But this is how democrats tend to get elected. Do you think it's a coincidence that their platform is centered on attacking the rich (who are outnumbered about 140,000,000 to 236,000), while promising tons of social benefits and programs to the larger voting group? Do you really think the larger voting group is going to bite the hand that feeds them? No! Democrats know this. Call me a hater, and call me stone-hearted, but I believe in democracy, and I believe in a government that does not help one person any more than it helps another. The current "democracy" we have is, by definition, discrimination, and it's not democracy's original intent. In the democracy I believe in, no one can pander; no one can lobby. In a non-discriminatory government, power is restored to the people. Politicians can't buy votes by giving voters sustenance. What Mitt Romney saying is essentially true, and he has said it the whole time. His line has been something like, "if you want a president who will give you free stuff, I'm not your guy... that guy is in the White House."
So please, media... stop making this bigger than it is. Mitt Romney is telling the truth. It's only a "gaffe" because the media is telling America that it is. This is my opinion... I'd love to hear more. Please share them below. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mitt Romney is simply stating something I truly believe in: democracy is being raped and perverted by politicians who are getting elected by promising to give voters stuff. I believe in a truly "vanilla," non-discriminatory government where everyone should be treated the same. My blood boils when I hear a large voting bloc being pandered to with the promise of "me and my party will give you free housing, food, unemployment benefits, health care, subsidized everything, and a lower tax burden, all paid for by a very small voting bloc." Was this the original intent of democracy? To simply have politicians hold power by offering those that elect them free things? No! But this is how democrats tend to get elected. Do you think it's a coincidence that their platform is centered on attacking the rich (who are outnumbered about 140,000,000 to 236,000), while promising tons of social benefits and programs to the larger voting group? Do you really think the larger voting group is going to bite the hand that feeds them? No! Democrats know this. Call me a hater, and call me stone-hearted, but I believe in democracy, and I believe in a government that does not help one person any more than it helps another. The current "democracy" we have is, by definition, discrimination, and it's not democracy's original intent. In the democracy I believe in, no one can pander; no one can lobby. In a non-discriminatory government, power is restored to the people. Politicians can't buy votes by giving voters sustenance.
ReplyDeleteI blieve in this too LME. I stand with you. You're not a hater. You are just sensible, and you believe in DEMOCRACY!
If what you said was really true and everything was really that simple, j555pner, the voting blocks between different levels of wealth wouldn’t be anywhere near as close to they actually are.
DeleteThe difference between the number of wealthy that vote Democrat vs Republican is even smaller than the number in poverty that vote Republican vs Democrat. The idea that everyone poor votes Democrat, and everyone rich votes Republican is little more than conjecture that has no basis in fact.
Good morning,
ReplyDeleteI think that some things have to be a bit more clarified here. What do you think Mitt Romney is right about?
Do you honestly believe that everyone who votes for Obama is dependent on government, believes they are victims, believe they’re entitled to health care, food, housing, and that they all pay no taxes? I’m hoping I don’t have to refute how ridiculous that implication is.
But that is exactly, quoted, what Mitt Romney said. And let’s not kid ourselves here; that is the main issue with Mitt Romney’s statement.
I don’t disagree with the idea of politicians that promise benefits to earn votes corrupting the system, and that seems to be your main point here. But again, that’s not what the issue is in Mitt’s statement. It’s one thing to say that and it’s another thing to say that every single person that votes for the other guy is essentially a lazy, dependent, non-tax-paying freeloading.
Imagine if Obama had said the exact same thing so plainly behind closed doors… that every person that supports Mitt was essentially a greedy, rich, job-killing and outsourcing corporate raider that wanted to keep living in excess on the backs of the middle class. How ridiculous would that be? Regardless if his point was ‘really’ how Mitt has appeased to that block of voters more than Obama has, that wouldn’t forgive how egregious his statement was.
And the idea that ‘this is how Democrats tend to get elected’ is an incredibly bold, unsubstantiated statement to make with no evidence to speak to it. Every election in my memory has had parties of both sides promise different benefits when elected; that’s how you get elected in the first place.
Furthermore, every single major social entitlement has been passed with bipartisan support through BOTH parties (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Student loan assistance, etc). To pin this on one party exclusively is not just disingenuous but flat-out false.
RKen - good morning! It looks like we are going to go from a couple rounds of agreement to disagreement. I would be happy to explain my views:
Delete- I agree with Mitt Romney's sentiment that many Obama supporters/supporters of democrats, yes, tend to fall into the group that are pandered to with social programs. Everyone? No. Many? Yes, absolutely. Take Obamacare, for example. It is estimated that 32,000,000 new people will be covered via a government social program. 32 mil new people will get free health insurance. This is a highly partisan issue with virtually no support from the GOP. Do you honestly think that people within this bloc of 32,000,000 voters would vote to remove this free social benefit? Do you think that anyone in the group of nearly 67,000,000 Americans that have a net negative income tax rate will vote to have their taxes increased? So no, while Mitt Romney should have clarified that it isn't ALL... it's definitely many.
- Mitt's main statement was that he isn't going to get the support of 47% of the electorate. Through all the media spin, that's precisely what I heard. He merely put a mechanism behind it, and frankly, I'm glad someone said it. We are a country that is supposed to be based on equality, yet he is calling out the fact that we're not even close.
- If Obama had done the same thing behind closed doors, do you think it would get any media attention? And if he did claim that every Mitt supporter was "essentially a greedy, rich, job-killing and outsourcing corporate raider that wanted to keep living in excess on the backs of the middle class" - wait, isn't this the left's argument? Isn't this what they harp on? I am hearing this "they want to raise taxes on the middle class so their rich buddies can get tax breaks" mantra from Reid, Pelosi, et al constantly.
- This IS how democrats tend to get elected. I would like to hear a counter-argument that somehow the receivers of social programs would vote them away. I'm surprised you claim this is "unsubstantiated." I posed the question, "would these voters really bite the hand that feeds them?
- As far as major entitlement programs being passed with bipartisan support... again... it's like falling into the same trap. Do you really think the GOP would get any support if they completely opposed these programs? The democrats are great at painting pictures, and the GOP is terrible at defending them. Frankly, I wish the GOP would have stood up against all these massive government programs. But, again, as my argument has been, do you think the GOP would really get any votes? If one guy said, "hey... you, the LARGEST voting group... how about when I get elected I work to create programs A, B, C, and D for you, and you won't have to pay for it..." while his GOP opponent said, "I'm not going to work for any of that..." do you really think the GOP candidate would get enough support to win the election? This is PRECISELY the type of system we have created in America, and this is precisely the type of system I wish we would eliminate. We don't have democracy any more. We have power in the politician's hands. Without the ability to discriminate via varying tax rates for people, subsidies for companies, etc, elected officials would not be able to stay in power the way they do. Eliminate government discrimination, and we would significantly reduce government power. Frankly, I think THIS is what Mitt Romney should be saying... that yes... we need to reduce the power of the government do continue on the path it's currently going down.
Round 2! :)
Delete- Mitt Romney’s statement and your agreement with him is not based on any kind of actual facts or evidence and is simply conjecture, which is my gripe. The idea that no person will ever against there own interests is wrong. It may apply for a large number of people, sure, but many people actually do vote against their own selfishness/greed. The idea that people don’t (or by your/Mitt’s words, “never”) is simply false.
Again, the facts reinforce this point as well if you look at any kind of ideological analysis of political voting habits. The most recent of which I could find by the Pew Research center shows that of the 25% of voters that earn over $75,000, 8.9% of which vote Republican and 10% vote Democrat. Why would this be the case, if people would never vote against their own interests (upper middle class/rich people voting for Obama being the example)?
Likewise, of the 16% of voters that earn below $20,000, why would 8.3% of that vote not be Democratic? Again, goes 100% against your idea that “people never vote against their own interests.” You simply can’t base your entire argument on that.
- His quote is exactly as I said; he said that everyone supporting Obama meets etcetc criteria.
- I see statements, off-the-microphone quotes, and off-the-cuff remarks made by Obama in the news rather often. Don’t we all remember his off-mic quote involving Russia? Same exact thing.
- Please provide any kind of evidence/fact that shows that the Democrats only receive votes from people they make benefit promises to. Again, the political voting statistics speak otherwise.
- I can’t realistically accept the argument that “The GOP only supported Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc, because they had no choice.” A few of which were even pioneered originally by Republicans.
LME and Rken
ReplyDeleteFirst, LME, I’m surprise you are taking such a common sense approach. Usually you stick to hard data, linked reports, cited facts and all that. What you’re doing here is simply common sense:
“Do you honestly think that people within this bloc of 32,000,000 voters would vote to remove this free social benefit? Do you think that anyone in the group of nearly 67,000,000 Americans that have a net negative income tax rate will vote to have their taxes increased?“
Common sense!
“This IS how democrats tend to get elected. I would like to hear a counter-argument that somehow the receivers of social programs would vote them away. I'm surprised you claim this is "unsubstantiated." I posed the question, "would these voters really bite the hand that feeds them?”
No data, no links, no citations. But YES it is COMMON SENSE. Shoot this down, please. Someone. I’d love to see you try.
“As far as major entitlement programs being passed with bipartisan support... again... it's like falling into the same trap. Do you really think the GOP would get any support if they completely opposed these programs? The democrats are great at painting pictures, and the GOP is terrible at defending them. Frankly, I wish the GOP would have stood up against all these massive government programs. But, again, as my argument has been, do you think the GOP would really get any votes? If one guy said, "hey... you, the LARGEST voting group... how about when I get elected I work to create programs A, B, C, and D for you, and you won't have to pay for it..." while his GOP opponent said, "I'm not going to work for any of that..." do you really think the GOP candidate would get enough support to win the election?“
Common sense. You’re just stating the obvious, LME. How can anyone not see this? Rken, is he wrong?
In reality, you might not like what LME has to say, but it is the truth. Do you really think the poor people who receive so many social programs are going to vote against the people who give them? That is how power works in this country. Sure, there are some poor republicans, but if you look at polls by who supports what party by income, the poor by and large vote democrat. They will do more so with Obamacare now being passed. Why do you think Obama pins the rich to the wall. He knows there aren’t that many rich voters. As they say on Espn, Rken “c’mon man.”
It's not common sense, it's an opinion/theory... and isn't a substitute for facts. :(
DeleteFacts are the truth. And the facts of the voting blocks say differently from what 'common sense' may indicate. It may appear to be common sense but the reality is different.
http://www.people-press.org/topics/voters/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_ideological_groups
Apologies, by the way, if I come across a bit blunt/competitive/short in any of my posts here today. Not my intention, just that I’m typing feverously between this and other commitments. Stretching my time a bit too thin!
ReplyDeleteEnjoying the debate though.
LME I love this debate, too! This is a great topic!
DeleteRKen, nothing ever personal taken by me. I'm sure I can speak for LME 32slim and everyone else, too. We are all smart, intelligent people, and this is just debate. Nothing person.
So don't take what I say as personal, either :-) In my opinion, I'm surprised you're being so obtuse, and I'm very surprised you're focusing so much on semantics.
"Mitt Romney’s statement and your agreement with him is not based on any kind of actual facts or evidence and is simply conjecture, which is my gripe."
As Texas Tea said, it's common sense. Ironically, the ideal that no person will ever vote against their own interests being wrong is itself, "not based on any kind of actual facts." In fact, if we had to poll the populace, want to place a bet on how many people would actually vote against their own interests? The see-saw, I think, falls on the side of people won't, RKen. I think you're taking an unrealistic argument here, and I'm not sure how you can stick to it. This is where the "obtuse" part comes in :-) As far as semantics, to focus on "never" is a little empty handed, too.
I'm a little confused by your stats. 25% of the voters in that group of $75K above income vote at a rate of 10% democrat? I might have missed somethign here. Plus, the people press link didn't work. Well, it went to something vague. The wikipedia link tends to lend more weight to what LME and Texas Tea said. It shows breakdowns by three types of conservatives and three types of liberals:
< $20K income: Conservatives: 7% 11% 32% Liberals: 20% 32% 12% - So yes, more, not all, but definitely more liberals in this group. Something else to note, this isn't "democrats" or "republicans." I say this because if you look at recent polls, for instance, go to realclearpolitics.com... they over sample democrats (it's like 44% D 38% R)... but ideology usually is something like 38% C 34% L. When looking at party much more democrats fall into the lower income category.
> $75K: Conservatives: 40% 31% 10% Liberals: 15% 8% 41% - So again, it's more conservatives in this group. You're focusing on "never" but IMO that seems like an "ah ha! I gotcha" rather than truth. Facts are that yes, most poorer people vote for democrats.
You claimed: His quote is exactly as I said; he said that everyone supporting Obama meets etcetc criteria. - Yes, you're focusing on semantics. You've even showed, and you are not able to get around the fact (yes, a "non-fact" common sense position like Texas said) - do you really think voters will NOT vote for people who give them free stuff? And who gives them free stuff? You can cover your ears all you want and you can scream "lalala I can't hear you all you want" but this is the truth.
damn character limit!
Delete"- Please provide any kind of evidence/fact that shows that the Democrats only receive votes from people they make benefit promises to. Again, the political voting statistics speak otherwise. - The DO NOT speak otherwise. How many times do I have to say it. Please tell me that a welfare mom (you can jump on this as hateful all you want, it's just the sad truth) with no education and 3 kids who is living off the government, please tell me that she is going to say no to the democrats that are much stronger in favor of these social programs than the GOP. To quote the Texas Tea who quoted ESPN: "c'mon man!"
"- I can’t realistically accept the argument that “The GOP only supported Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc, because they had no choice.” A few of which were even pioneered originally by Republicans." - You can't because you don't want to sniff reality. LME pointed out truth. THIS is the democracy we live in. It's not about equality. It's about grabbing power. In this system, we don't usurp it, we get it by votes. How do you get votes? You give people something. C'mon man x 2. How do you not see this?
As usual, nothing personal here :-)
Hi Mn4Rick,
DeleteMy focus here is on the statistical breakdown/analysis of voting habits and ideologies. Numbers don’t lie.
This topic is sort of one of those things that rub me the wrong way because of how often it’s repeated and how blatantly false it is when you look at the cold hard numbers, similar to how ‘Mitt Romney pays less taxes than the middle class!’ rubs LME the wrong way.
When people say that about Mitt, they make incorrect assumptions that are easily proved wrong by the numbers. Likewise for this topic though, when people attempt to imply that the poor only vote Democrat and the rich only vote Republican, or that one party is overwhelmingly an entitlement, non-tax paying, uneducated, freeloading group while the other isn’t… It’s incorrect, and the numbers prove it.
If you take the statistical breakdown on the wiki, which was taken from the data provided by Pew Research, you can get the numbers I arrived at. It’s a little overly complex, but here’s the breakdown:
As a percentage of the total respondents, the table from the research is translated into the table below it (and discounting the ‘bystanders’):
http://imageshack.us/a/img829/4874/capturexbc.jpg
Which in lumping the different ‘types’ of each together, is then simplified to:
http://imageshack.us/a/img823/149/capture2gqi.jpg
Or, if you can’t view the picture:
Demographic Right Middle Left
***Educational attainment***
High School dropout 2.5% 2.1% 4%
High School 11.0% 7.7% 13%
Some college 8.0% 5.6% 10%
College graduate 9.6% 5.4% 12%
***Household income***
$20,000 or less 4.7% 3.6% 7%
$20,000 to $30,000 3.8% 2.5% 7%
$30,000 to $50,000 8.4% 5.2% 9%
$50,000 to $75,000 5.2% 3.8% 6%
$75,000 or higher 8.9% 5.9% 10%
I wish I could post the pictures in my reply, but that’s the best I can do.
And yes, I am focusing on never, because that is the argument that keeps being made. If you, Mitt, and LME don’t believe that it ‘never’ happens and actually believe that ‘it happens most of the time’, you should be making that argument instead :) but every post made here has said people ‘won’t vote’ or ‘never vote’ against their own interests.
Though, even attempting to say that ‘the majority of people never vote against their benefits’ would still be somewhat disingenuous and subjective. Half of the poverty vote isn’t Democratic, despite Democrats being the only ones promising anything involving the poverty benefits. Likewise, the upper middle class/rich vote is near evenly split between both Repub/Dems, despite Democratics having a platform that does nothing for (and actually takes from) the rich.
Short of refuting the numbers posted, I don’t see how anything else proves this wrong.
You have a valid point in the possibility for varying results and weakness of the survey in question, but this isn’t the only analysis that reaches similar conclusions. At this point I would say the burden is on you to provide numbers that paint a substantially different picture than the ones above.
I think LME did say it's not a matter of "never" but rather one of "most of the time. "So no, while Mitt Romney should have clarified that it isn't ALL... it's definitely many." - LME
DeleteSince it's relevant, here are more articles/numerical analysis on the topic:
Deletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/rush-limbaugh-says-welfare-recipients-turn-out-to-vote-in-force-they-really-dont/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/the-powerful-welfare-voting-bloc.html
Though, those are only focused on a single data point (2008 election).
Regarding my point though, it shows that even with the disproportionate voter turnout in the 2008 election, half of those earning <$30k didn't show up to vote. And of those that did show up and voted for Obama, they in total amounted to 11% of all votes cast.
Hardly an election that was ran or won for the Democrats by 'poor/entitled/non-tax-paying people wanting more benefits.'
My gut feeling is now, RKen, that you've realized you're completely incorrect about which demographics vote for whom, and now you're going to try to use side distraction.
DeleteLet's rewind. You and I have been debating about which groups vote for whom. We have NOT, in any way debated how much of each income/wealth demographic votes.
I have stated, as many in this thread have, that the poor, the recipients of MOSTLY democrat-lead social programs DO vote for Obama/democrats and would dare not bite the hand that feeds them. Your claim is that no, voting demographics are now evenly split. You then cite this daily beast article which shows my argument to be 100% correct.
The AMOUNT at which they come out to vote is irrelevant, and I do believe you're using this as a side issue. BUt if you look at the DB's chart, you can see my argument to be true:
< $15k 73% Obama 25% McCain (there is no other demographic that has THIS kind of disparity) It is also arguable that those making <$15k are in fact quite poor and the most likely to receive government services. Regardless, how do you get away from the 73-25 set?
$15k-$30k 60% Obama 37% McCain Again, another HUGE difference. Yes, I understand Obama did win the election, so naturally he is going to have more. But it's the relative nature that proves that yes, poorer people tend to vote democrat (in looking at this election). In no other income brackets is it even close to what we see here.
So now, how in the world are you going to try to say that no, it's more even. And yes, how much come out to vote is a non-issue.
I've never said they're evenly split; you're putting words into my mouth. I said that the difference in the voting splits and how they influence ultimate outcomes is small, but that wasn’t even my main point.
DeleteI even said as much in one of my posts here, and I quote: “It may apply for a large number of people, sure, but many people actually do vote against their own selfishness/greed.” Which would be counter to your assumption that I believe it’s evenly split.
My main point again though is that it's not one-sided, which is part of the primary argument you and others have made. I've supplied numbers from multiple sources that speak to this same point.
And how much people of differing incomes vote and in what numbers is absolutely the topic here. The original implication made by Mitt and supported by posts here, is that the entitlement mentality fuels Democratic voting and victories. Yet, statistically the people most likely to be thriving on entitlements aren't the core support of the Democratic Party. Nor do they all support Democrats. Likewise, the people who would not benefit from any entitlement passed by Democrats, still support Democrats in comparative numbers to Republicans.
And I know very well what was in those articles; I’m the one that linked them! I’m not sure how you’re attempting to turn around my own sources on me lol, you’re ignoring the fact that those numbers you quoted from the article result in the ‘<$30k Obama vote’ being only 11% of the total number of votes cast in the election. And under the same Demographic, 6% of the total number of votes for McCain. I guess that slight change in topic might be getting confused in my original main point.
But continuing that tangent let’s discount this ‘poverty’ vote completely. No one who makes less than $30k is counted. AKA, the group of people that ‘win Democrats elections.’
This is the result:
15-30k 7.20% 4.44%
30-50k 10.45% 8.17%
50-75k 10.08% 10.29%
75-100k 7.65% 7.20%
100-150k 6.72% 7.14%
150-200k 2.88% 3.00%
200k+ 3.12% 2.76%
40.90% 38.56%
Obama STILL wins by a 6% margin.
The idea that Democrats only win with poverty votes is false, and the idea that the poverty vote only votes Democratic is false (11% Obama vs 6% McCain in total votes from those <$30k?), and the idea that the rich don’t vote Democratic is false, and the general idea that people only vote for who can give them the most entitlements is false.
Believe me, as in my first original post I share the same concern for the corruption in politics, but saying it's one-sided and making the implications here is unfair.
Are we going to debate what Mitt meant or what the truth is? The truth is, I'm tired of working my ass off, coming home smelling like hell, covered in hell, so I can make a buck while the government takes a bunch of money from me to give to people who have a bunch of kids with no way to pay for them in order to get that person's vote. That's the truth. I work, and I work hard. Just the though of people sitting on their couches at 2 in the afternoon, sleeping in with no jobs, living on 99+ weeks of unemployment (seriously?!!?!?!) while I have to get up early and grind through the day just the thought of knowing that their food, their cable bill, their livelihood is subsidized by my sweat makes me sick. It makes me vote for Mitt Romney. Tell me I'm wrong and I will pay for you to come watch me work. Tell me I'm wrong and I will show you my ignorant, disgusting mooching neighbors who will vote for Obama because he and Pelosi will give the moochers more and more and more.
ReplyDeleteMitt was right, I'm just sorry he said it behind closed doors. I prefer he'd have been the SOMEONE who stood up and said it out loud... maybe something like this:
ReplyDeleteI think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
Our Founders saw this coming:
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
- Thomas Jefferson [What would Jefferson say today?]
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
A Poem from the 30's (author unknown)
Father must I go to work?
No my lucky son.
We’re living now on Easy Street
On dough from Washington
We’ve left it up to Uncle Sam
So don’t get exercised
Nobody has to give a da*n—
We’ve all been subsidized.
But if Sam treats us all so well
And feeds us milk and honey
Please Daddy tell me what the h*ll
He’s going to use for money.
Don’t worry bub, there’s not a hitch
In this here noble plan—
He simply soaks the filthy rich
And helps the common man.
But Father won’t there come a time
When they run out of cash
And we have left them not a dime
When things will go to smash?
My faith in you is shrinking son
You nosy little brat
You do too dam much thinking son
To be a Democrat!
Love it. This post is now official closed for business. Dara summed up everything very eloquently
DeleteRKen - I too have been busy all day :-/ and I don't have much time. It sucks because I would have liked to stay in this argument. I've actually lost track of it. Maybe you or MN 4 Rick can summarize it for me.
ReplyDeleteI kid :-)
It sounds like no one is going to agree on who makes up what percentage of which voting bloc and how much those people come out to vote. I think you've both brought up tangible points.
I just want to interject, now, that no matter what, I push for a society where no politician can simply say "vote for me and I will give you XXX." In my opinion, the democrats definitely do that more. Regardless of who does it, I don't think democracy was meant to be this way because this ultimately puts the power back in the hands of the politicians... not the people.
I know that's off topic a bit, but I can't stay on here long. I do hope to come back on soon.
As I originally said, I agree with your main point in not supporting what is essentially 'buying votes' through benefits/promises. :) I hope that wasn't lost in the rest of this discussion.
DeleteI just believe that it's unfair (and untrue) to label one party as the only one that does it, or being propped up exclusively by that type of people, or only winning elections because of it.
"I just believe that it's unfair (and untrue) to label one party as the only one that does it"
DeleteIt's not unfair/untrue. It's clear the democrats do it way more than the GOP. Would you like me to do a study? As far as being propped up "Exclusively" by one type of people, no, but that one type of people DOES tend to vote MORE for the dems over the GOP. You've shown that in this thread. So how is it not reasonable to conclude that the dems, in knowing they will be voted for by people who will give them stuff, why is it unreasonable to say they do this more?
Facts:
Dems offer up/support social, redistribution programs MORE than the GOP
A larger % of poorer people who would benefit from these programs vote democrat. Not all. Most.
Let me give you the cycle: Dem says, "vote for me, I give you stuff." Voter votes for dem. Dem gets in office, puts out free stuff. Runs for reelection. People who got free stuff reelect dem. Dem is in second term, puts out free stuff.
I guess this is more of that unproven "common sense" stuff Tea was talking about <3
You see, you're arguing something completely different in your first statement.
DeleteWhat I said: "I just believe that it's unfair (and untrue) to label one party as the only one that does it"
What you said: "It's not unfair/untrue. It's clear the democrats do it way more than the GOP."
My argument made no implication of who did it more; it was stating it's false to imply that only one side does it and/or is run exclusively by it, etc. Which again, is supported by the numbers.
And I can argue just the same as you.
Facts:
Republicans traditionally offer up/support tax cuts (cost money), and promises of 'safety and better protection' (military spending).
Ironically enough, our combined spending on our military and the Bush tax cuts are higher than ‘welfare&food stamp’ spending. So who’s promises are really more expensive there?
WHICH party ran (and continues to run) MediSCARE ads? WHICH party constantly harps on those 'fat cat, evil rich' not 'paying their 'fair share'? WHICH party started the 'War on Women' with lies about the OTHER party wanting to DENY their 'RIGHT' to 'reproductive health products'? WHICH party screams 'for the children' re: Obamacare, school choice, welfare - etc. etc. etc?
DeleteFACT: It's 49% who pay no federal income tax. FACT: Many of those SAME people receive REFUNDS for monies NEVER paid in. FACT: Those SAME people are the MAIN RECIPIENTS of programs FUNDED by TAX DOLLARS. Can ya say 'double dip'?
However, all the 'free stuff' aside, I believe that Obama and the Dems are losing SOME support, for a couple of different reasons: Their (latest) view on 'gay marriage'/their view on unfettered abortion/their view with regard to Christianity coupled with their thinly veiled support for Islam. Okay... that's three : )
And before anyone points and yells 'Islamaphobe' - all Muslims aren't bad, just the ones who kill people and burn/destroy stuff and those who think that OUR Constitution should/would/could be overridden by Sharia Law.
Whether the 'social issues' voters on the LEFT will be enough to tip the scales in Romney's favor will remain to be seen.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
~Thomas Jefferson~
Dara: You do realize that of the % that pay no federal income tax, the reason they're able to do this legally in the first place is because of tax deductions, write-offs, and loopholes pioneered typically by the Republican side?
DeleteThe whole way it works, is that 95% of the people who end up with no tax bill are able to deduct themselves out of it.
The Mortgage Interest deduction is typically the biggest of which, passed by Reagan of all people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Wouldn't that be a prime example of 'winning votes through promising money?'
Yes I do know... Our own son is one who paid NO tax after deductions... AND received a refund! doesn't make it right.
DeleteWhen the mortgage deduction was introduced MY personal rate was 28% - they took ALL of my wages PLUS a percentage of my tips...and I STILL had to pay more at the end of the year... We've paid our mortgage down so far - that it no longer does anything for us... (so much for hard work and diligence)....so you get no points on that one.
EVERYONE should have SOME 'skin in the game.'.. particularly those who 'game the system' and end up (without working) w/more 'free stuff' that I could afford to purchase (if I wanted all that 'stuff')...
Oh I definitely agree that everyone should have to pay something, which is typically taken care of through the payroll tax part. But even so, I agree that everyone should owe at least a minimum federal income tax.
DeleteThe mortgage interest deduction is in fact the most costly deduction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/your-money/despite-critics-mortgage-interest-deduction-persists.html?pagewanted=all
At an estimated cost of $90,000,000,000/year to continue to provide, it is the most expensive deduction in our tax code.
@RKen... I gotta disagree w/u that 'tax cuts cost money'.
ReplyDeleteI EARNED that money. It was MINE until the government saw fit to confiscate it and SPEND IT WASTEFULLY on many programs that I DISAGREE WITH, which do NOTHING but propagate MORE wasteful spending.
The Constitutions says the gov is SUPPOSED TO set up the government; define laws; protect liberty and life - period.
The government CREATES NOTHING. Like a ravenous beast, it CONSUMES the fruit of the labor of We The People.
Tax cuts, deductions, exemptions, loopholes, etc, all take money away from the government unless they're paid for through other means. In most cases, they are not.
DeleteIt is an expense, just as a corporations and standard accounting practices view dividends as an expense. And the government recognizes it as that, whether people choose to believe it or not.
It was only recently that Congress was at a stalemate over quote: "how to pay for the payroll tax cut."
Tax cuts, like entitlements or other programs, have to be paid for somehow or the resulting outcome are deficits and running up the debt.
@RKen - Arguing with a liberal is like playing checkers with a pigeon - they eat all the checkers and then poop on the board... : )
ReplyDelete