He meant “Democrat-voting minorities.” He’s arguing that those red states have a lot of food stamp use because (essentially) the white people vote Republican and don’t get food stamps, and the minorities vote Democrat and get food stamps. Cites are needed on both sides.
OMG assumptions and no facts?
One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending.
But Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.
Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.
LOL.
In light of Romney’s recently revealed comments, a friend of mine wrote a song called “The Real Mitt Romney.” Check it out, it’s pretty funny.
:dubious: I’ve heard this before and seen the charts with federal dollars spent and received ratios favoring red states as deadbeats and blue as generous.
That’s a poor assumption to make.
Democratic states are typically urban, Republican rural. Maintaining services and infrastructure compared to taxation is cheaper in denser populations. If you’re maintaining a mile of road only with the resources of those living on it, it’ll be much cheaper for each individual household if there are 20 families on it than 2.
I think it’d be more accurate to say “voters” or “areas” here instead of “states.”
Just clicked the link, wow. Yeah, that looks bad. Forget what I said.
Though “inelegantly” stated, OMG is in the main correct; blacks have a much higher poverty rate than other races, and the majority of blacks are in the South, so this is definitely a contribuing factor in the amount of government assistance received by these states. This is a much simpler explanation for the disconnect between government assistance and voting than simple hypocrisy.
To be clear, this in no way excuses the fact that whites in southern states vote to reduce government funding despite the evidence that more citizens than average in their state receive food stamps. IMO it’s a side effect of the informal effort to keep this level of poverty hidden from the white voting class, and to write it off as a “black” problem. These factors encourage the majority whites in these states to vote for cutting off funding to the “shiftless moochers” (and we all know who they are, right?).
Nuh-uh!
Luckily, I didn’t say that. I said that within those Republican leaning Southern states, you would find a greater percentage of Democrats on food stamps than you would Republicans, in which case the state level voting data wouldn’t adequately reflect who is actually on food stamps (as the way a state votes is not necessarily the same way that any given group within that state votes). Again, it’s not a hard concept, though in general I’ve found on this board liberals don’t understand this as evidenced by a few threads on education on who pays more taxes. Anyway, the fact that we’re even arguing this is a bit odd, as you could simply look at the demographics of food stamp recipients and cross that with the voting tendencies of said groups. But, apparently, that would be far too hard or something :rolleyes:
So before we go any further-- and just for shits and giggles-- what do you think the demogrphic breakdown is of the people who receive foodstamps by, say, race and income is on a state level basis?
(Hint: You could always check here.)
You either didn’t read what I posted or you have a hard time comprehending it is what I said. I’m going to go with the latter.
I find candid comments from politicians very refreshing. It’s nearly impossible anymore to hear the unvarnished truth.
Romney made many valid points.
Is a Israel / Palestinian treaty likely? Nope. Their best chance was back in the 90’s with the Oslo Accords and the creation of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). It failed because of continued radical Palestinian attacks. Like it or not the Arabs hate the state of Israel. They want to destroy it. Until that changes there will never be peace.
Why is it so shocking that Obama’s base is entitlements? That’s been the Democratic base since Roosevelt and The New Deal. Johnson and the welfare act. Democrats love socialism.
Can you nitpick and criticize Romney’s comments? Sure you can. They were a bit patronizing. But, I much rather hear candid comments then pabulum.
Instead we get vague, euphemisms. 60 and 90 second sound bites. Change, Hope Obama says. Messages carefully crafted not to upset the masses or lead to awkward press questions. I get so fed up with the b.s. Why can’t our politicians tells us what they really think and want to do?
btw, Obama has his own candid interview out there from 1998. His thoughts on Redistribution are fascinating. They are a blueprint of his future Presidency.
So, how do you account for all the people in California who are NOT on food stamps, but vote for the Democratic party?
OMG: “You either didn’t read what I posted You either didn’t read what I posted or you have a hard time comprehending it is what I said. I’m going to go with the latter.”
- I think you’ve forfeited the right to complain about someone not 'reading what you’ve posted" after admitting not reading the link.
- "You either didn’t read what I posted or you have a hard time comprehending it is what I said. " This sentence is ‘inelegent’ at best, and incomprehensible at worst. Go ahead, read it yourself, sounding out the words if that helps. I think you mean to state that I am unable to understand your reasoning. Is that what your attempted sentence is trying to mean?
This is it, this is your kill shot? ALL taxes are redistribution.
You already posted the answer: when they explain their plans, it’s often turned into nonsense like this-
I also believe in some redistribution.
Imagine how refreshed you would feel then, if Romney, or Obama for that matter, would make such statements as the governor did in a speech actually meant for public consumption!
What I don’t understand is why (essentially) Republican controlled states are so bad at getting people OFF of food stamps. If you look at other states (often Democratic controlled states), they seem to be able to enable people to move on in life and off of the ‘food stamps’ rolls. Yet, the southern (Republican leaning/controlled) states, even with stricter qualifications, have a larger percentage of the population who are not able to move on.
Hmmmmm… to me, that seems to say that Republicans WANT people on food stamps and similar programs. That they do things like enable wages that are so low that a full time job is still below the national poverty level (so qualified for food stamps). Thinking this through… then the Republicans are using MY TAX DOLLARS to subsidize their cheap labor. MY TAX DOLLARS are paying for their laborers’ supplemental food and medical care costs while in MY STATE the companies have to pay decent wages or they don’t get decent employees.
So… by my thinking (and NO I DON’T HAVE A CITE) the Republicans are redistributing my tax dollars to their cronies in southern states so that they can get their tomatoes picked practically for free by undocumented workers while I have to pay minimum wage to adults in my state for the same work. I’m sick of Republicans sucking off of my tax dollars. Probably the biggest leach out there is the “about to turn 50yrs old” Walmart of Bentonville Arkansas. My tax dollars are paying food supplements and health care for probably 80% of their retail workers and they’re the biggest employer in the country.
This isn’t true. The states that take more from the federal government than they give generally vote Republican. There’s a map about that somewhere.
ETA: Whoa, this thread is moving fast. If the above is redundant, I apologize.
All I’m trying to say is we have two choices. Do we want carefully crafted messages written by a committee of speech writers? Insipid 60 sec sound bites from both parties?
Or can we hear the politicians real thoughts? Hear real speeches that may occasionally upset us or even <gasp> have a few errors.
I’m amazed Romney was willing to talk so candidly. No doubt it will hurt his campaign. There’s plenty of things to criticize. He’s not a warm and fuzzy guy. He doesn’t connect with the common man. The next few months of the campaign aren’t going to be easy.
But, I agreed with at least 75% of what Romney was saying. I just wish it hadn’t come out quite so elitist.
Because he was with a crowd of rich donors and nobody was supposed to be recording him. This was what the donors wanted to hear, which is why he said it. All candidates do this, but Romney in particular keeps the press away from every event he can. Like I said, I’d rather they all be recorded so they just stop keeping two sets of books. Either tell the public what you really think of them or find a non-moronic way to express your message.