I am not racist but this is bull
- Thread starter frisbee
- Start date
crusty369
Registered
Well....Let's use Achem's razor, shall we?
Look at what is being fielded by the Repub's...almost like they don't want to win....let's make the token effort, and try to not be accused of taking a dive, lol.
Hell, bureaucratic Washington just got this one broken in...
He'll serve another term, as long as he keeps" goin' along to get along"..
That's the way Corporatism works, fellow's...(;~}€
Look at what is being fielded by the Repub's...almost like they don't want to win....let's make the token effort, and try to not be accused of taking a dive, lol.
Hell, bureaucratic Washington just got this one broken in...
He'll serve another term, as long as he keeps" goin' along to get along"..
That's the way Corporatism works, fellow's...(;~}€
First off:
1. BO, I'd really like to meet you someday as you give me hope that some people can see beyond their color and know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG.
2. I have no idea who kountrywill is, unless you are just flamebait. Bo never said anything negative about anyone, but more about the choices HE made, much smarter ones than most of ANY color.....
3. That was a personal attack and is not tolerated by the moderators. Quick way to lose your privileges....
1. BO, I'd really like to meet you someday as you give me hope that some people can see beyond their color and know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG.
2. I have no idea who kountrywill is, unless you are just flamebait. Bo never said anything negative about anyone, but more about the choices HE made, much smarter ones than most of ANY color.....
3. That was a personal attack and is not tolerated by the moderators. Quick way to lose your privileges....
huh..lol..i figured the thread wuz doomed when it started out with..
"I am not racist but..."
i dunno man..moments ago i read a headline where Newt promised lower gas prices...and Mitt?..it seems he has a pattern of saying something real stupid and/or insulting everytime he gets a leg up...almost as though he trys but then get scared he might acutally get the job..me?..i think the RNC knows the next 4 years are going to be as bad or worse than the last 4 years and are throwing the race on purpose..he11..word on the street is they dont even like their own candidates! LOL!
I know this..i cant help but like Obama..for one?..I recall his wife telling a story about their early dating days where she jumped in his car in feb. and went to pick up a piece of cardboard on the floor of Baracks car only to expose a hole rusted through the floorboard...and that stuck with me..why?..cause they know or can at least remember what "struggling" is....i also noticed how much gray has appeared on Barracks head over just the past few years..yet his character and charisma still shines through..even when the going gets tough in the face of a non-compliant system which seems to place 99.999% of it's focus on patisanship while Barrack and the american people patiently wait for that leftover .0001%..and i feel shame for the fact that this is the best this country can do welcoming in our first Black President?..the man made major history just winning the election..and did so with some of his own taking the lowest shots at him..(relax Bo..i'm refering to Hillary)...and i believe the man deserves better..but only because i sincerely believe he's doing his best for us..all of us..and doing so against an extremely strong upstream current..in cold, harsh waters..so yeah..maybe he aint breaking no speed records but every inch has definantly been hard won..yet the man still greets with a smile everytime...and i just cant help but admire that.
They say ya shouldnt judge a man till ya walk a mile in his shoes..i cant help but wonder how many other men would even have the nads to put his on..even for a moment..yet he walks the walk..day in and day out..which probably explains all that gray hair he seems to have aqquired in just a few, short, fast years.
I'd wear a suit and an uzi for'im.
"I am not racist but..."
i dunno man..moments ago i read a headline where Newt promised lower gas prices...and Mitt?..it seems he has a pattern of saying something real stupid and/or insulting everytime he gets a leg up...almost as though he trys but then get scared he might acutally get the job..me?..i think the RNC knows the next 4 years are going to be as bad or worse than the last 4 years and are throwing the race on purpose..he11..word on the street is they dont even like their own candidates! LOL!
I know this..i cant help but like Obama..for one?..I recall his wife telling a story about their early dating days where she jumped in his car in feb. and went to pick up a piece of cardboard on the floor of Baracks car only to expose a hole rusted through the floorboard...and that stuck with me..why?..cause they know or can at least remember what "struggling" is....i also noticed how much gray has appeared on Barracks head over just the past few years..yet his character and charisma still shines through..even when the going gets tough in the face of a non-compliant system which seems to place 99.999% of it's focus on patisanship while Barrack and the american people patiently wait for that leftover .0001%..and i feel shame for the fact that this is the best this country can do welcoming in our first Black President?..the man made major history just winning the election..and did so with some of his own taking the lowest shots at him..(relax Bo..i'm refering to Hillary)...and i believe the man deserves better..but only because i sincerely believe he's doing his best for us..all of us..and doing so against an extremely strong upstream current..in cold, harsh waters..so yeah..maybe he aint breaking no speed records but every inch has definantly been hard won..yet the man still greets with a smile everytime...and i just cant help but admire that.
They say ya shouldnt judge a man till ya walk a mile in his shoes..i cant help but wonder how many other men would even have the nads to put his on..even for a moment..yet he walks the walk..day in and day out..which probably explains all that gray hair he seems to have aqquired in just a few, short, fast years.
I'd wear a suit and an uzi for'im.
Jinx, I agree that my party seems to have a hard time finding a consistently solid candidate this season. I will also agree that it IS an achievement in having the first Black President.
But, let me give you some stats:
-49.7% of the taxpaying public pay's ZERO taxes
-a significant percentage of the 49.7% acutally get a CASH REFUND on taxes THEY NEVER PAID
- The goverment is currently spending MORE money on benefits (food, shelter, college, medical bennies) than the ENTIRE goverment takes in annually in taxes. We are in the hole before we even GET to defense, or the other things the Government was SUPPOSED to do.
- you can not tax the rich enough, even if you took 100%, to pay for all these handout programs. Obama didn't pay for his law degree, the GOVERNMENT did. He is a PRODUCT of this system. I don't know how much 'struggling' he really did, everything he has is because he was able to get it out of a government PROGRAM.
IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. And this is Obama's voting base. I want a President that believes in the equal right for the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness at the business end of a government's 'redistribution' program.
But, let me give you some stats:
-49.7% of the taxpaying public pay's ZERO taxes
-a significant percentage of the 49.7% acutally get a CASH REFUND on taxes THEY NEVER PAID
- The goverment is currently spending MORE money on benefits (food, shelter, college, medical bennies) than the ENTIRE goverment takes in annually in taxes. We are in the hole before we even GET to defense, or the other things the Government was SUPPOSED to do.
- you can not tax the rich enough, even if you took 100%, to pay for all these handout programs. Obama didn't pay for his law degree, the GOVERNMENT did. He is a PRODUCT of this system. I don't know how much 'struggling' he really did, everything he has is because he was able to get it out of a government PROGRAM.
IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. And this is Obama's voting base. I want a President that believes in the equal right for the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness at the business end of a government's 'redistribution' program.
Combined me and my wife paid in just under 1500 in taxes and our refund is 2600
It is because of our college but how the government can afford to give us more than we put in? I dont know...
KFORCE1
Registered
Me thinks the American people said no thanks, no hope and keep the change in Nov 2010. Even he said he was shellacked! I only wonder what they will say this November. Maybe this time he has or will finally convince enough people that his way and his liberal agenda is the way to go. I wouldn't bet on it.
Combined me and my wife paid in just under 1500 in taxes and our refund is 2600
Would you like for me to tell you how, Russell?
YOU ARE WELCOME. I and my family paid for it. I worked 2 jobs for 20+ years to make something of my life. My family and I paid with AFTER TAX DOLLARS my college education (no loan, no assistance). I only had ONE child, so that I could ensure she has a good opportunity. I served my country. I didn't get addicted to alcohol or drugs (thank goodness). I did not get in over my head, paid all my bills off and paid for my home. I've never taken a PENNY of unemployment, food stamps, or any other form of government assistance. I MADE MY OWN DESTINY. And if you knew how much money I pay in ESTIMATED taxes on money I MIGHT earn and am not likely to EVER SEE. And I had it easy, my Dad started with NOTHING and scrimped and scraped to give ME that opportunity. And I'm doing the same for my DAUGHTER, WITHOUT the governments help.
I'm just tired of 49.7 % of the population living with stuff that I didn't have or do, continue to hold out their hands and demand MORE MORE MORE without a shred of personal responsibility. I don't mind one bit helping people in time of need, but we have forgotten the "give a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish" lesson.
crusty369
Registered
crusty369 said:
On a side note.....
Let's not turn this into a "race" thing.....
It's a "have, have not" thing. Fewer and fewer "have's" exploiting more and more "have not's". And yes, I consider some third generation welfare abuser to be in the "have" column.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it......
214 Busa
Registered
Discussion of Politics, Race & Religion are always the topics that have lowest flashpoints & are about as stable as nitro glycerin not only on forums but just in a group type setting offline. I think that if people on this forum or offline can't add something to keep the discussion healthy and flowing in a positive manner without making personal attacks then those people just need to shut up when grown folks are talking....just my 2 pennies worth.
Thanks Bo for keeping your composure and thanks Admin for stepping in.
Thanks Bo for keeping your composure and thanks Admin for stepping in.
kountrywill
Registered
I agree jinkster. Skydiver who in particular is Obamas base that you speak of? Those right wing stats that you spew whats the source? And Captain this topic never should have made it this far as nothing positive will come from it. Like it or not he is your president.
kountrywill
Registered
Five Major Welfare Myths
Myth #1: The typical welfare recipient is a black inner city single mother.
The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families accountfor even more--one out of four.
Myth #2: The poor are lazy.
Forty percent of poor adults work, although many cannot find full time jobs. Indeed, even when they do they may still be in poverty. Some 11 million jobs in 1991 paid less than $11,500, $2,000 under the official poverty level for a family of four. Of those poor adults who don't work, 90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities.
Myth #3: Welfare mothers breed welfare daughters.
Two long term studies reported by the House Ways and Means Committee in 1992 found that only about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves become highly dependent on welfare. The rest rely on welfare sporadically or not at all.
Myth #4: Throwing people off the welfare rolls will eventually improve their lives and save taxpayers money.
The most celebrated experiment in welfare reform has occurred in Michigan. Governor Engler completely eliminated his state's $240 million General Assistance(GA) payments to 83,000 childless, able bodied adults.Only 8 percent of these former GA recipients found employment and they earn
an average of only $120 a week. Many sell blood for $20 a pint. Over one third lost their homes when the program ended. As one study notes, if only 5 percent of these former GA recipients end up in prison or a state psychiatric institution all the taxpayer savings from ending General Assistance will be lost.
Myth #5: Welfare is cheaper than creating well paying public jobs.
In his book "Securing the Right to Employment", Philip Harvey calculates that in 1986 we could have achieved full employment by creating l0.4 million public service jobs. He further assumed that the average annual wage would be $13,000. The cost of such a program would have been a daunting $142 billion. But when we deduct from this sum the taxes that would be paid by these new workers and the savings from drastically reduced unemployment insurance payments, welfare , Medicaid, food stamps and other expenditures directly linked to low income and unemployment overall we would have spent $13 billion less. A full employment program, even excluding the social savingsfrom reduced family violence, more stable communities, and less crime, pays for itself in reduced welfare expenditures.
If we can overcome these five myths about welfare we may well engage in a national dialogue with meaningful results, not only for the one in five Americans who now live in poverty, but for the nation as a whole. But this will occur only when we challenge and overcome the welfare myths that paralyze our thinking.
Myth #1: The typical welfare recipient is a black inner city single mother.
The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families accountfor even more--one out of four.
Myth #2: The poor are lazy.
Forty percent of poor adults work, although many cannot find full time jobs. Indeed, even when they do they may still be in poverty. Some 11 million jobs in 1991 paid less than $11,500, $2,000 under the official poverty level for a family of four. Of those poor adults who don't work, 90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities.
Myth #3: Welfare mothers breed welfare daughters.
Two long term studies reported by the House Ways and Means Committee in 1992 found that only about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves become highly dependent on welfare. The rest rely on welfare sporadically or not at all.
Myth #4: Throwing people off the welfare rolls will eventually improve their lives and save taxpayers money.
The most celebrated experiment in welfare reform has occurred in Michigan. Governor Engler completely eliminated his state's $240 million General Assistance(GA) payments to 83,000 childless, able bodied adults.Only 8 percent of these former GA recipients found employment and they earn
an average of only $120 a week. Many sell blood for $20 a pint. Over one third lost their homes when the program ended. As one study notes, if only 5 percent of these former GA recipients end up in prison or a state psychiatric institution all the taxpayer savings from ending General Assistance will be lost.
Myth #5: Welfare is cheaper than creating well paying public jobs.
In his book "Securing the Right to Employment", Philip Harvey calculates that in 1986 we could have achieved full employment by creating l0.4 million public service jobs. He further assumed that the average annual wage would be $13,000. The cost of such a program would have been a daunting $142 billion. But when we deduct from this sum the taxes that would be paid by these new workers and the savings from drastically reduced unemployment insurance payments, welfare , Medicaid, food stamps and other expenditures directly linked to low income and unemployment overall we would have spent $13 billion less. A full employment program, even excluding the social savingsfrom reduced family violence, more stable communities, and less crime, pays for itself in reduced welfare expenditures.
If we can overcome these five myths about welfare we may well engage in a national dialogue with meaningful results, not only for the one in five Americans who now live in poverty, but for the nation as a whole. But this will occur only when we challenge and overcome the welfare myths that paralyze our thinking.
kountrywill
Registered
CLOSE X Loading Image...TopSkip to Content
HomeLog In / Register FeedbackPOLITICO Jobs Find stories by:Author Any Reporter Abrahamson, ZacharyAlberta, TimAllen, JonathanAllen, MikeAujla, SimmiBarbash, FredBarr, AndyBresnahan, JohnBudoff Brown, CarrieBurns, AlexanderCatanese, DavidCheney, CatherineCogan, MarinCohen, Richard E.Coller, AndieCummings, JeanneDiMascio, JenFrates, ChrisFrerking, BethGavin, PatrickGerstein, JoshGlass, AndrewGordon, CraigGrieve, TimHaberkorn, JenniferHaberman, MaggieHagey, KeachHarris, John F.Hart, KimHeitz, DiannaHillman, G. RobertHohmann, JamesHoskinson, CharlesHunt, KasieIsenstadt, AlexKady II, MartinKliff, SarahLee, Carol E.Lee, MJLovley, ErikaLozano, AliciaLubold, GordonMahtesian, CharlesMark, DavidMarr, KendraMarson, AnneMartin, JonathanNegrin, MattNichols, BillParnes, AmiePhillip, AbbyRaju, ManuRogers, DavidRomm, TonyRozen, LauraRyan, KikiSamuelsohn, DarrenSherman, JakeShiner, MeredithSimon, RogerSmith, BenTanabe, KarinTaylor, JessicaThrush, GlennToeplitz, ShiraTrowbridge, AlexanderVandeHei, JimVogel, Kenneth P.White, BenWong, Scott Or Date Any Date 8/30/2010 8/29/2010 8/28/2010 8/27/2010 8/26/2010 8/25/2010 8/24/2010 Or Keywords POLITICO POLITICO 44CLICKCongress2010ArenaLobbyingPolicy
MoneyHealth CareEnergy and EnvironmentDefenseFuel EconomyTechnologyCommunityMultimediaHeadlinesMore Info
About UsAdvertisingArticle ArchiveBreaking News AlertsEmploymentFAQLog in/RegisterMobile POLITICOPOLITICO JobsRSS / WidgetsSite MapStoreSubscriptionNavigate: POLITICOOpinionMost affluent voters key to Obama sweepMain Content
Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep
ListenPrintCommentEmailSubscribe.By MARK PENN | 11/11/08 4:36 AM EDT Text Size-+reset.
Penn notes it was those who will be taxed under the new Obama plan that provided win.
AP Photo Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.
This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.
The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.
At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.
While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.
And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.
So the fusion of expanded minority voting and the expanded upper class, combined with shifting demographics, were key to Obama’s victory. But while demographers have been predicting the growth in minority voting — especially the Latino increases — for decades, they did not predict the upscale income changes in the electorate or focus on them. Most people in America (over 80 percent) no matter what their income, say they are middle class, which is why that phrase is so powerful on the stump.
Pages12»Back to top
PrintCommentEmailSubscribe.Get alerted every time your favorite reporter posts a story
Mark Penn
Email Sign Up.Like this story? Share it with others
7diggsdigg.Follow POLITICO on My Web Post.Read more stories in Opinion.More Stories
2012 race emerges as novel campaign
2012 race emerges as novel campaign
Conservative pundits turn down Newt
Conservative pundits turn down Newt
Mitt's granite fortress under siege
Mitt's granite fortress under siege
.
Romney's war on two fronts
Romney's war on two fronts
Paul gears up for long primary slog
Paul gears up for long primary slog
Boehner's last stand on payroll
Boehner's last stand on payroll
.Readers' Comments (92)
Show the first 20 comments Sane64 Party: DemocratReply #1 Nov. 11, 2008 - 6:00 AM ESTYes sir... after all the moaning and groaning about raising taxes on these boards leading up to the election, it turns out the people whose taxes will be raised voted for Obama over McCain. Funny how that works eh?.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Joe's6Pack Party: RepublicanReply #2 Nov. 11, 2008 - 6:03 AM ESTBreaking from Newsmax.com Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. drbillybob Party: RepublicanReply #3 Nov. 11, 2008 - 6:04 AM ESTCan you say "rich white guilt" ?
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. WorldOver Party: IndependentReply #4 Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:44 AM ESTYou mean the smart ones with money group also voted for Obama. What group DID vote for McCain?.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #5 Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:53 AM ESTTeamPolitico: Nov. 11, 2008 - 4:39 AM EST These new professionals in software, the media, consulting, and mid-management have now declared themselves to be Democrats. After seeing Clinton and Bush back to back, they have switched their votes as part of a rejection of the religious right, the war in Iraq, and laissez-faire economics.
It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat. Just look at the agenda. The government is well on the way toward nationalizing American business. This is a huge conflict of interest, when those who make the laws are in it for the money. Corruption will follow big time. These new, well educated, scientific voters are about to get a new education. They could simply look at history and learn this the easy way, but it appears that may not satisfy these elites. TIme to hold on folks, it's going to get a bit bumpy.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. WorldOver Party: IndependentReply #6 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:00 AM ESTCable: Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:53 AM EST It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat. Just look at the agenda. The government is well on the way toward nationalizing American business. This is a huge conflict of interest, when those who make the laws are in it for the money. Corruption will follow big time. These new, well educated, scientific voters are about to get a new education. They could simply look at history and learn this the easy way, but it appears that may not satisfy these elites. TIme to hold on folks, it's going to get a bit bumpy.
WHO started with the nationalization of banks? (what's your definition of a Marxist, btw)
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. dos_centavos Party: IndependentReply #7 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:01 AM ESTTeamPolitico: Nov. 11, 2008 - 4:39 AM EST In the end when it comes to a congressional vote, will they support higher taxes if they have to pay them?
I'm waiting for the congress and Obama to tell Oprah - no more free cars to the public, open your wallet and put it in the government coffers.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Stephen_Lahanas Party: IndependentReply #8 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:07 AM ESTAIG is OOC - Out of Control The insurance giant AIG has an insatiable appetite - yesterday it gobbled down another $40 billion, this time allocated from the $700 Bailout fund. AIG has now to date swallowed $153 billion of your Tax Dollars. That pricetag now includes the following components:
$60 billion in preferred loans (down from the original 85). $40 billion in preferred stock for the government (and the company is now running under a government appointed CEO). $53 billion to buy up toxic debt, mortgage backed securities. At this rate, one company may devour the entire bailout package. It has never fully been explained why AIG is receiving such special treatment; it is not the only insurance giant in the United States and yet no other insurance companies have warranted this kind of attention or any bailout funds to date.
It's time to launch a real investigation as to what's going on here. There a number of problems with this situation; those problems include the following:
The inclusion of ANY toxic debt support. That $53 billion will be a total loss for the taxpayer right when we need it most to help bolster the economy. The provision of ANY loans without more stringent guidance. Just a week after the first loan of $85 billion, AIG executives went on a luxury retreat and seemed geared towards doing business as usual. Some of this has been corrected, some hasn't. We still haven't been provided clear answers as to why AIG deserves this treatment other than vague assertions that it is too big to fail and too connected to the rest of the financial system. Well - news flash, the rest of the financial system already failed. Bailing out AIG did not prevent that. We need to restructure this deal immediately. The of the bailout needs to be shifted back to its original limits and all of that money needs to be dedicated to providing the government preferred stock - no loans and no payoff for toxic debts. And most importantly, this needs to be a firm limit. The company has to work with this amount, period - this $85 billion figure still represents as much as the entire auto industry may need to be rescued, $85 billion is enough to save one insurance company.
Copyright 2008, Stephen Lahanas
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Solomon44 Party: N/AReply #9 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:24 AM ESTdrbillybob-"Can you say "rich white guilt" ?" Can you say socially aware, and responsible?.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. D.affiliated Party: IndependentReply #10 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:38 AM ESTCable: Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:53 AM EST It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat.
It would appear that you have just declared yourself an idiot. It is that type of sensationalistic hyperbolic deceitful nonsense that is pushing people over to the Democrats. The right is growing less and less rational and intellectually honest by the moment. What you said makes no sense, which you would know if you knew the actual definition of a Marxist. But you right-wing hatemongers don't really care. The only thing that matters is how dramatic you can be and how things strike you in your stomach.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. D.affiliated Party: IndependentReply #11 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:43 AM ESTWorldOver: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:00 AM EST WHO started with the nationalization of banks? (what's your definition of a Marxist, btw)
Great point, but you can't allow a deceitful right-wing ideologically blind zealous hatemonger that kind of wiggle room. It's not about *his* definition of Marxist. He can't just change the definition to fit his scurrilous purposes. There is A definition of Marxist and right-wingers can't just change the definition to engage in their totally transperant to anyone with a clue ignorant hate and smear campaign.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #12 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:46 AM ESTWorldOver: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:00 AM EST WHO started with the nationalization of banks? (what's your definition of a Marxist, btw)
Who's going to finish it? You go look up Marxism, I didn't define it.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #13 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:48 AM ESTD.affiliated: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:38 AM EST It would appear that you have just declared yourself an idiot.
Thanks for that. I haven't been called a bad name by an elitist yet today. You just filled my quota. The rest will be gravey.
"But you right-wing hatemongers don't really care."
Are you mongering hate toward us right-wingers?
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. xxtxx Party: NAReply #14 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:51 AM ESTThe policy of the GOP has been to cater to the wealthy and their corporate interests and yet these people vote more for the Democrats. Meanwhile, the economics of the middle class who make up the Republican Party have been undermined (with declining wages & soaring costs) and ignored by the Washington GOP. No wonder they lost the election..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. toolman3 Party: N/AReply #15 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:52 AM ESTWorldOver: Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:44 AM EST What group DID vote for McCain?
60-65 years old...the only age demo the GOP carried this time...
no college......
under 50K annual income--
in other words.....low information voters
.........fortunately ACORN will be registering millions
of new progressive voters-
to make sure those people don't
make our future choices..
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #16 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:59 AM ESTtoolman3: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:52 AM EST fortunately ACORN will be registering millions
of new progressive voters-
It would be interesting to know the full education demographic of the deomcrat voter. From what I've seen the education level isn't all that impressive. They have their dropouts and racists the same as any other party.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. USA Patriot Party: DemocratReply #17 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:00 AM ESTCable wrote: "It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat." Wrong. They did 2 things unknown to conservatives. They put their money where their mouths are, and they put their country ahead of their wallets. These personal characteristics of honesty and patriotism are unknown to conservatives..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. AJ0909 Party: LibertarianReply #18 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:02 AM ESTWait...I thought the economy has been terrible for the past 8 years. How did these people's incomes grow so much? Were they listening to Obama at all during the campaign? I guess they thought they would get an exemption if they voted for him. If what they want is to "bring back the 90s", I guess they forget that Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships and the majority of state legislatures, not to mention a key mayor in NY. All the Democrats had was a weakened moderate in the White House who got elected with 42% of the vote and basically signed whatever Newt Gingrich put on his desk after 1994. But oh boy...we really stuck it to those Christians. Maybe Obama will at least let us throw a few of them to the lions after he takes all our money. Say hello to Joe the Plumber on your way down..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. toolman3 Party: N/AReply #19 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:04 AM ESTCable: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:59 AM EST deomcrat
needless to say--
most of them can spell "democrat"
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #20 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:06 AM ESTtoolman3: Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:04 AM EST most of them can spell "democrat"
You are a tool man.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse.Read all 92 comments in our forum
YOU NEED TO LOG IN TO USE THIS SYSTEM!
Email is Required
Email
Password is Required
Password
Forgot Password?
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register Now!
Comment on this articleMost affluent voters key to Obama sweepMessage is Required (9000 chars max)Signature (200 chars max) Advertisement
Multimedia
Turn the Table: Newt frontrunner 2012 Dispatch: Weekend Preview VIDEO: POLITICO Playback See all video
Politico Blogs
Ben Smith on Politics and Media
Times won't confirm endorsement.
Burns & Haberman on 2012
Sununu: House vets say Newt 'not stable.'
David Catanese on Campaigns
If Nelson retires, would Bob Kerrey run?
CLICK
Tweets: Osbourne, Huntsman, McCain.
On Congress
Cantor 'stunned' by Virginia Tech shootings.
Josh Gerstein on the Courts
Army disciplined 15 over Wikileaks. Advertisement
POLITICO's Early Morning Tip Sheets
Playbook
Romney, embattled in N.H., launches radio ads
Morning Score
New Romney video slams Gingrich on Ryan plan
Morning Money
Breaking overnight: Limited euro deal, no 'bazooka'
Pulse
New Democrat Coalition to release white paper on health policy priorities.
The Huddle
END GAME
Morning Energy
Keystone at the heart of a game of chicken.
Morning Defense
Conferees hope to finalize defense bill today
Morning Tech
AT&T/T-Mobile status conference today.
POLITICO Policy
Money
Health Care
Energy and Environment
Defense
Technology
Transportation and Infrastructure
POLITICO Column
Roger Simon
Gingrich flies by the seat of his pants, justifying whatever he wants to. Pollitico
Ron's run
Do you think Ron Paul will be a long-term factor in the GOP race?Yes -- He's got the cash and campaign structure to stick around awhile.Maybe -- It depends on whether he can break through to a new constituency.No -- He'll see the writing on the wall soon after the early states.I'm not sure.
Submit VoteReference StoryView ResultsArchivesWuerking Drawings
See all .News
POLITICO Home
POLITICO 44
2010
Arena
CLICK
Congress
Lobbying
Community
Multimedia
Ben Smith
Laura Rozen
On Congress
On Media
Josh Gerstein
Maggie Haberman
Tip Sheets
Playbook
Morning Score
Morning Money
Pulse
The Huddle
Morning Energy
Morning Defense
Morning Tech
Policy
Money
Healthcare
Energy
Defense
Fuel Economy
Technology
More Info
About Us
Advertising
Article Archive
Breaking News Alerts
Employment
FAQ
Log in/Register
Mobile POLITICO
POLITICO Jobs
RSS / Widgets
Site Map
Store
Subscription
© 2010 Capitol News Company LLC Terms of ServicePrivacy PolicyBack to top FD HIDDEN DIV
HomeLog In / Register FeedbackPOLITICO Jobs Find stories by:Author Any Reporter Abrahamson, ZacharyAlberta, TimAllen, JonathanAllen, MikeAujla, SimmiBarbash, FredBarr, AndyBresnahan, JohnBudoff Brown, CarrieBurns, AlexanderCatanese, DavidCheney, CatherineCogan, MarinCohen, Richard E.Coller, AndieCummings, JeanneDiMascio, JenFrates, ChrisFrerking, BethGavin, PatrickGerstein, JoshGlass, AndrewGordon, CraigGrieve, TimHaberkorn, JenniferHaberman, MaggieHagey, KeachHarris, John F.Hart, KimHeitz, DiannaHillman, G. RobertHohmann, JamesHoskinson, CharlesHunt, KasieIsenstadt, AlexKady II, MartinKliff, SarahLee, Carol E.Lee, MJLovley, ErikaLozano, AliciaLubold, GordonMahtesian, CharlesMark, DavidMarr, KendraMarson, AnneMartin, JonathanNegrin, MattNichols, BillParnes, AmiePhillip, AbbyRaju, ManuRogers, DavidRomm, TonyRozen, LauraRyan, KikiSamuelsohn, DarrenSherman, JakeShiner, MeredithSimon, RogerSmith, BenTanabe, KarinTaylor, JessicaThrush, GlennToeplitz, ShiraTrowbridge, AlexanderVandeHei, JimVogel, Kenneth P.White, BenWong, Scott Or Date Any Date 8/30/2010 8/29/2010 8/28/2010 8/27/2010 8/26/2010 8/25/2010 8/24/2010 Or Keywords POLITICO POLITICO 44CLICKCongress2010ArenaLobbyingPolicy
MoneyHealth CareEnergy and EnvironmentDefenseFuel EconomyTechnologyCommunityMultimediaHeadlinesMore Info
About UsAdvertisingArticle ArchiveBreaking News AlertsEmploymentFAQLog in/RegisterMobile POLITICOPOLITICO JobsRSS / WidgetsSite MapStoreSubscriptionNavigate: POLITICOOpinionMost affluent voters key to Obama sweepMain Content
Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep
ListenPrintCommentEmailSubscribe.By MARK PENN | 11/11/08 4:36 AM EDT Text Size-+reset.
Penn notes it was those who will be taxed under the new Obama plan that provided win.
AP Photo Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.
This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.
The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.
At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.
While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.
And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.
So the fusion of expanded minority voting and the expanded upper class, combined with shifting demographics, were key to Obama’s victory. But while demographers have been predicting the growth in minority voting — especially the Latino increases — for decades, they did not predict the upscale income changes in the electorate or focus on them. Most people in America (over 80 percent) no matter what their income, say they are middle class, which is why that phrase is so powerful on the stump.
Pages12»Back to top
PrintCommentEmailSubscribe.Get alerted every time your favorite reporter posts a story
Mark Penn
Email Sign Up.Like this story? Share it with others
7diggsdigg.Follow POLITICO on My Web Post.Read more stories in Opinion.More Stories
2012 race emerges as novel campaign
2012 race emerges as novel campaign
Conservative pundits turn down Newt
Conservative pundits turn down Newt
Mitt's granite fortress under siege
Mitt's granite fortress under siege
.
Romney's war on two fronts
Romney's war on two fronts
Paul gears up for long primary slog
Paul gears up for long primary slog
Boehner's last stand on payroll
Boehner's last stand on payroll
.Readers' Comments (92)
Show the first 20 comments Sane64 Party: DemocratReply #1 Nov. 11, 2008 - 6:00 AM ESTYes sir... after all the moaning and groaning about raising taxes on these boards leading up to the election, it turns out the people whose taxes will be raised voted for Obama over McCain. Funny how that works eh?.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Joe's6Pack Party: RepublicanReply #2 Nov. 11, 2008 - 6:03 AM ESTBreaking from Newsmax.com Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. drbillybob Party: RepublicanReply #3 Nov. 11, 2008 - 6:04 AM ESTCan you say "rich white guilt" ?
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. WorldOver Party: IndependentReply #4 Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:44 AM ESTYou mean the smart ones with money group also voted for Obama. What group DID vote for McCain?.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #5 Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:53 AM ESTTeamPolitico: Nov. 11, 2008 - 4:39 AM EST These new professionals in software, the media, consulting, and mid-management have now declared themselves to be Democrats. After seeing Clinton and Bush back to back, they have switched their votes as part of a rejection of the religious right, the war in Iraq, and laissez-faire economics.
It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat. Just look at the agenda. The government is well on the way toward nationalizing American business. This is a huge conflict of interest, when those who make the laws are in it for the money. Corruption will follow big time. These new, well educated, scientific voters are about to get a new education. They could simply look at history and learn this the easy way, but it appears that may not satisfy these elites. TIme to hold on folks, it's going to get a bit bumpy.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. WorldOver Party: IndependentReply #6 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:00 AM ESTCable: Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:53 AM EST It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat. Just look at the agenda. The government is well on the way toward nationalizing American business. This is a huge conflict of interest, when those who make the laws are in it for the money. Corruption will follow big time. These new, well educated, scientific voters are about to get a new education. They could simply look at history and learn this the easy way, but it appears that may not satisfy these elites. TIme to hold on folks, it's going to get a bit bumpy.
WHO started with the nationalization of banks? (what's your definition of a Marxist, btw)
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. dos_centavos Party: IndependentReply #7 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:01 AM ESTTeamPolitico: Nov. 11, 2008 - 4:39 AM EST In the end when it comes to a congressional vote, will they support higher taxes if they have to pay them?
I'm waiting for the congress and Obama to tell Oprah - no more free cars to the public, open your wallet and put it in the government coffers.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Stephen_Lahanas Party: IndependentReply #8 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:07 AM ESTAIG is OOC - Out of Control The insurance giant AIG has an insatiable appetite - yesterday it gobbled down another $40 billion, this time allocated from the $700 Bailout fund. AIG has now to date swallowed $153 billion of your Tax Dollars. That pricetag now includes the following components:
$60 billion in preferred loans (down from the original 85). $40 billion in preferred stock for the government (and the company is now running under a government appointed CEO). $53 billion to buy up toxic debt, mortgage backed securities. At this rate, one company may devour the entire bailout package. It has never fully been explained why AIG is receiving such special treatment; it is not the only insurance giant in the United States and yet no other insurance companies have warranted this kind of attention or any bailout funds to date.
It's time to launch a real investigation as to what's going on here. There a number of problems with this situation; those problems include the following:
The inclusion of ANY toxic debt support. That $53 billion will be a total loss for the taxpayer right when we need it most to help bolster the economy. The provision of ANY loans without more stringent guidance. Just a week after the first loan of $85 billion, AIG executives went on a luxury retreat and seemed geared towards doing business as usual. Some of this has been corrected, some hasn't. We still haven't been provided clear answers as to why AIG deserves this treatment other than vague assertions that it is too big to fail and too connected to the rest of the financial system. Well - news flash, the rest of the financial system already failed. Bailing out AIG did not prevent that. We need to restructure this deal immediately. The of the bailout needs to be shifted back to its original limits and all of that money needs to be dedicated to providing the government preferred stock - no loans and no payoff for toxic debts. And most importantly, this needs to be a firm limit. The company has to work with this amount, period - this $85 billion figure still represents as much as the entire auto industry may need to be rescued, $85 billion is enough to save one insurance company.
Copyright 2008, Stephen Lahanas
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Solomon44 Party: N/AReply #9 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:24 AM ESTdrbillybob-"Can you say "rich white guilt" ?" Can you say socially aware, and responsible?.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. D.affiliated Party: IndependentReply #10 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:38 AM ESTCable: Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:53 AM EST It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat.
It would appear that you have just declared yourself an idiot. It is that type of sensationalistic hyperbolic deceitful nonsense that is pushing people over to the Democrats. The right is growing less and less rational and intellectually honest by the moment. What you said makes no sense, which you would know if you knew the actual definition of a Marxist. But you right-wing hatemongers don't really care. The only thing that matters is how dramatic you can be and how things strike you in your stomach.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. D.affiliated Party: IndependentReply #11 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:43 AM ESTWorldOver: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:00 AM EST WHO started with the nationalization of banks? (what's your definition of a Marxist, btw)
Great point, but you can't allow a deceitful right-wing ideologically blind zealous hatemonger that kind of wiggle room. It's not about *his* definition of Marxist. He can't just change the definition to fit his scurrilous purposes. There is A definition of Marxist and right-wingers can't just change the definition to engage in their totally transperant to anyone with a clue ignorant hate and smear campaign.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #12 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:46 AM ESTWorldOver: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:00 AM EST WHO started with the nationalization of banks? (what's your definition of a Marxist, btw)
Who's going to finish it? You go look up Marxism, I didn't define it.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #13 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:48 AM ESTD.affiliated: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:38 AM EST It would appear that you have just declared yourself an idiot.
Thanks for that. I haven't been called a bad name by an elitist yet today. You just filled my quota. The rest will be gravey.
"But you right-wing hatemongers don't really care."
Are you mongering hate toward us right-wingers?
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. xxtxx Party: NAReply #14 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:51 AM ESTThe policy of the GOP has been to cater to the wealthy and their corporate interests and yet these people vote more for the Democrats. Meanwhile, the economics of the middle class who make up the Republican Party have been undermined (with declining wages & soaring costs) and ignored by the Washington GOP. No wonder they lost the election..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. toolman3 Party: N/AReply #15 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:52 AM ESTWorldOver: Nov. 11, 2008 - 7:44 AM EST What group DID vote for McCain?
60-65 years old...the only age demo the GOP carried this time...
no college......
under 50K annual income--
in other words.....low information voters
.........fortunately ACORN will be registering millions
of new progressive voters-
to make sure those people don't
make our future choices..
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #16 Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:59 AM ESTtoolman3: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:52 AM EST fortunately ACORN will be registering millions
of new progressive voters-
It would be interesting to know the full education demographic of the deomcrat voter. From what I've seen the education level isn't all that impressive. They have their dropouts and racists the same as any other party.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. USA Patriot Party: DemocratReply #17 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:00 AM ESTCable wrote: "It would appear they have declared themselves more Marxist than Democrat." Wrong. They did 2 things unknown to conservatives. They put their money where their mouths are, and they put their country ahead of their wallets. These personal characteristics of honesty and patriotism are unknown to conservatives..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. AJ0909 Party: LibertarianReply #18 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:02 AM ESTWait...I thought the economy has been terrible for the past 8 years. How did these people's incomes grow so much? Were they listening to Obama at all during the campaign? I guess they thought they would get an exemption if they voted for him. If what they want is to "bring back the 90s", I guess they forget that Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships and the majority of state legislatures, not to mention a key mayor in NY. All the Democrats had was a weakened moderate in the White House who got elected with 42% of the vote and basically signed whatever Newt Gingrich put on his desk after 1994. But oh boy...we really stuck it to those Christians. Maybe Obama will at least let us throw a few of them to the lions after he takes all our money. Say hello to Joe the Plumber on your way down..ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. toolman3 Party: N/AReply #19 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:04 AM ESTCable: Nov. 11, 2008 - 8:59 AM EST deomcrat
needless to say--
most of them can spell "democrat"
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse. Cable Party: ConservativeReply #20 Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:06 AM ESTtoolman3: Nov. 11, 2008 - 9:04 AM EST most of them can spell "democrat"
You are a tool man.
.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse.Read all 92 comments in our forum
YOU NEED TO LOG IN TO USE THIS SYSTEM!
Email is Required
Password is Required
Password
Forgot Password?
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register Now!
Comment on this articleMost affluent voters key to Obama sweepMessage is Required (9000 chars max)Signature (200 chars max) Advertisement
Multimedia
Turn the Table: Newt frontrunner 2012 Dispatch: Weekend Preview VIDEO: POLITICO Playback See all video
Politico Blogs
Ben Smith on Politics and Media
Times won't confirm endorsement.
Burns & Haberman on 2012
Sununu: House vets say Newt 'not stable.'
David Catanese on Campaigns
If Nelson retires, would Bob Kerrey run?
CLICK
Tweets: Osbourne, Huntsman, McCain.
On Congress
Cantor 'stunned' by Virginia Tech shootings.
Josh Gerstein on the Courts
Army disciplined 15 over Wikileaks. Advertisement
POLITICO's Early Morning Tip Sheets
Playbook
Romney, embattled in N.H., launches radio ads
Morning Score
New Romney video slams Gingrich on Ryan plan
Morning Money
Breaking overnight: Limited euro deal, no 'bazooka'
Pulse
New Democrat Coalition to release white paper on health policy priorities.
The Huddle
END GAME
Morning Energy
Keystone at the heart of a game of chicken.
Morning Defense
Conferees hope to finalize defense bill today
Morning Tech
AT&T/T-Mobile status conference today.
POLITICO Policy
Money
Health Care
Energy and Environment
Defense
Technology
Transportation and Infrastructure
POLITICO Column
Roger Simon
Gingrich flies by the seat of his pants, justifying whatever he wants to. Pollitico
Ron's run
Do you think Ron Paul will be a long-term factor in the GOP race?Yes -- He's got the cash and campaign structure to stick around awhile.Maybe -- It depends on whether he can break through to a new constituency.No -- He'll see the writing on the wall soon after the early states.I'm not sure.
Submit VoteReference StoryView ResultsArchivesWuerking Drawings
See all .News
POLITICO Home
POLITICO 44
2010
Arena
CLICK
Congress
Lobbying
Community
Multimedia
Ben Smith
Laura Rozen
On Congress
On Media
Josh Gerstein
Maggie Haberman
Tip Sheets
Playbook
Morning Score
Morning Money
Pulse
The Huddle
Morning Energy
Morning Defense
Morning Tech
Policy
Money
Healthcare
Energy
Defense
Fuel Economy
Technology
More Info
About Us
Advertising
Article Archive
Breaking News Alerts
Employment
FAQ
Log in/Register
Mobile POLITICO
POLITICO Jobs
RSS / Widgets
Site Map
Store
Subscription
© 2010 Capitol News Company LLC Terms of ServicePrivacy PolicyBack to top FD HIDDEN DIV
Hey all I did was flll out turbo tax! Dont shoot me!
What is the source of that? Not to mention it is over 10 years old. I do not agree with those whatsoever. I have unfortunately known multiple people on welfare that suck the system and pass it down to their children and do not work. Maybe not everyone on welfare is like that but I am confident enough to say most abuse it.
There are the givers, that pay into the system (50.3 percent). There are the takers, who get something out of the system (49.7 percent). Once the Takers outnumber the Givers, they can vote whatever they want for themselves, and drive us right out of business. It is not a self-supporting system.
P.S. Allen West ROCKS.
P.S. Allen West ROCKS.
On a slightly lighter note while I think this thread has the administrator's attention, why can't I post any pictures from my mobile device. Each time I try it says I need permission granted? Riddle me that batman.
Back to the topic at hand, to the person that mention talking politics and religion is unstable, I agree which is why I advocate against it. The entire purpose this particular thread was create was to get everyone to see his/her side and agree. What are you are witnessing is Democracy at its finest.
I happen not to agree with his/her point of view and that does not make me wrong or him/her right. Bottom line is take it to the voting booth and not here because all your going to do is frustrate yourself when someone disagrees.
I voted for the guy last time and I am proud supporter of him now. I was a proud supporter of GW too, why, because I serve this great nation daily that's why and will continue to do so. If Romney or Santorum wins the nod then by all means vote for who YOU see fit.
Back to the topic at hand, to the person that mention talking politics and religion is unstable, I agree which is why I advocate against it. The entire purpose this particular thread was create was to get everyone to see his/her side and agree. What are you are witnessing is Democracy at its finest.
I happen not to agree with his/her point of view and that does not make me wrong or him/her right. Bottom line is take it to the voting booth and not here because all your going to do is frustrate yourself when someone disagrees.
I voted for the guy last time and I am proud supporter of him now. I was a proud supporter of GW too, why, because I serve this great nation daily that's why and will continue to do so. If Romney or Santorum wins the nod then by all means vote for who YOU see fit.
Quite honestly most people that comment on the economic situation dont know much about economics which MAKES politics. If any have the time you can read a few books including Financial Reckoning day, Empire of dept, and even obama's book audacity of hope which i thought was going to be very political but actually turned out to be a uncovering of the human side of politics that i just didnt know, and most people dont. The first two books pretty much show the economy from a societal point of view with the basic premise that you cannot get something for nothing. There is also a video they have too thats very good.Very well said. They are going to hate you here saying stuff like that.
Similar threads
