View Single Post
      09-20-2012, 08:24 PM   #44
48Laws
Captain
10
Rep
607
Posts

 
Drives: '11 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: East Coast

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Didnt ignore them, they were addressed in earlier posts, if you took the time to read. Must I not only provide the food, but cut it up and then spoon feed it to you? Fine... Post #40 in this thread contains a link to a CNN article which points out quite clearly that Obama supporters ARE clearly more likely to consume entitlements. Nationally, in the 18-29yr old bracket alone, 14% of Romney supporters are unemployed, while almost a third of Obama supporters are unemployed. States with the highest unemployment such as Calif are overwhelming Obama fans. If you are unemployed, you are probably consuming entitlements (unless you are living off a rich parent), and you are obviously more likely to fall into the 47% who pay no federal income taxes. Or, say you have a job, but its crappy and pays no benefits: Democrats rely heavily on the support of of voters who are the most likely to be uninsured for health care (blacks are 22% uninsured, latinos 32% uninsured, and these folks DONT support Romney. Whites are 14% uninsured.)
So, your strategy is to address me by replying to another member? Are you that intellectually lazy or just skillfully deceptive? Your links are buried randomly in your nonsense.

HOW COULD YOU OVERLOOK THIS ...

"Unfortunately, we don't have reliable or consistent data on the political preferences of the unemployed. The numbers we do have are fragmentary.
"


Even your own article has no answer for the 25% of undecided voters, genius...as it cannot be determined what they vote.

18-29 is hardly a fair index of Obama voters and you must be on crack cocaine if you're surprised that age bracket has relatively high unemployment or reliance on bennies. HAHAHAHAHA. Are you serious?

And that article must have been written by captain obvious since it implied red v. blue states just with an urban/minority twist to it. What is your point? And the 14% uninsured Rmoney relies on for votes DOES NOT take into account married couples, where one spouse is jobless and using the other person's benefits. But, you'd have to know the dynamics between minority v. white families and urban v suburban. Many minorities don't have credit cards to finance their period of underemployment. Most of their transactions are cash only. And if you're renting, getting evicted is a lot quicker than getting foreclosed which takes months, so, Captain Obvious, that 14% may be underrepresented since they may have other means to float their joblessness but that doesn't mean they are less dependent on benefits. It just implies they don't need them as quickly to maintain whatever they have.

Also...
"This hardly settles the question, but the fact that the president fares so well with demographic groups that have experienced higher unemployment rates is nevertheless suggestive." That's right...suggestive.

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/opinio...ney/index.html

Awesome cut & paste job.


Quote:
The point is that the actions taken to earn a scholarship are usually considered to be honorable, positive, desirable accomplishments (high grades for example). The attributes you must possess to collect Medicaid, for example, are not those of high achievement, but usually are signs of low achievement, at least fiscally speaking. Nobody says "hooray, now I'm finally making so little I qualify for more entitlements" Let me put it this way: in the animal kingdom, those people accepting the handout of Medicaid would be the squirrels who didnt sock away enough nuts to survive the winter. While Social Security may not be a handout because you have paid into it (so essentially you are just cashing out your investment), stuff like Medicaid and food stamps are handouts.
This is not a question of what is or isn't honorable. This is a determination of what should be considered a handout or why one helping-hand is not as good as another type of helping-hand. A university's accreditation and ranking partially relies on the performance of its students, so paying the good ones is in the university's best interest first. Maintaining the health of a nation is in the gov't best interest, too since the strength of a nation begins with our well being. How about we address the low interest loans or option to defer payment students receive upon graduation? What about the huge debts these students graduates with? That seems like an equal burden on the system if you ask me. Maybe they are the 18-29 year olds on unemployment.

Quote:
Obviously the grants to children of parents killed while defending their country are on the honorable, positive accomplishment side. To suggest I would feel otherwise without any evidence of that is really reaching and putting disingenuous words in my mouth, just as you have done with others. Not terribly impressive; hard for me to take pride in dismantling that sort of feckless argument.
I can only reply to what you've written and you made it quite clear that grants are handouts without first educating yourself about the various grants available. Do you want me to cut up your food and spoon feed you, too?

Quote:
I take no joy from others failures. Because others havent achieved, my taxes must go to support them. If they had all achieved, that would be more desirable for me, as my taxes could be lowered with no loss of service. Joy is not watching others struggle, joy would be that everyone makes enough money that there is nobody who doesnt pay income taxes. If YOU are so concerned about others, then why did you say that you didnt care if the entitlement pots run out of money due to demographic changes, because you were not relying on them for support when you are old?
You can't even pinpoint how much of your salary goes to help these people, so what the hell are you babbling about? That just sounds like a romantic response about taxes that has become all too familiar. This is what was said;

Originally Posted by 48Laws View Post
It's a problem, definitely. But only if one is using SS as a back up plan to sustain themselves in their later years. I'm not.


Quote:
What? This makes no sense. I did drag my proverbial ass out of the mud to help them. Now I'm making enough money to be taxed, and that money pays their salaries. Same thing with the military.
My point is, we all benefit from our neighbors. You'd gladly pay your taxes if you knew what it took to police the world and our borders. Not saying you don't appreciate it, but everything affects everything.


Quote:
Once again, as I've explained before, if we didnt bail out GM, those billions of dollars would have not vanished into thin air. We could have used it to support other employers, those who dont pay dropouts $30 an hour to drop a bolt in a hole. I would argue that those dollars spent elsewhere could have created more jobs than what we lost if GM sank. Hell, GM is losing almost 50 grand for each Volt sold. http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-is...lt-sold-2012-9 Are you happy with that investment of your money ?
Wow. You're incredibly disgusting. You marginalize blue-collar workers because they chose a certain profession? Yeah, you have no class. $30/hour to bend, twist, lift and stand on your feet t for a number of hours while you help earn CEO millions a year??? . I'd say that's a fair wage.


Quote:
Who said I can't handle an opposing view? You are the one who said you were tired of others comments. I find this whole discussion quite amusing. I would love to say it's enlightening or educational, but really, it's more amusing...
You can't. Which is why a member who can't even defend himself still torments you. The only thing laughable is your allegiance to this elite group of Americans based on how much money you think you earn. That can all be taken away an instant. I can't tell you came from nothing.