What are the odds any welfare recipient will vote republican?

[The2ndAmendment]

Zero. Simply because this is nothing more than buying votes. Oh, but Democrats want to purge "big money" from politics. Right. Let me know how that works out.

I always point that out to liberals. The biggest money in politics, that dwarfs even George Soros's donations to the Democrats, is the welfare system that purchases votes.

 

[Kondor3]

...Most welfare goes to Republicans for one...

Really?

I was not aware that the collected demographics on Welfare (TANF, Food Stamps, general aid, etc.) included a Party Affiliation component.

Ya learn sumfin' new every day.

Do you have any links to credible data supporting that claim?

 

[hangover]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.

Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.

You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.

There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.

So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.

There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.

You can't deal with "if", you must deal with reality. None of the debt has been paid since Andrew Jackson. Throwing the elderly and poor out in the street by cutting those programs, only creates a homeless and prison problem. And if you think the cons are going to cut out the defense budget, you're really in dream land.

Where did I say throw the elderly and poor out in the street?!?

Tax expenditures have nothing to do with food stamps or Social Security. Or Defense, for that matter.

The savings from eliminating tax expenditures are realized regardless if spending is reduced in other areas. Just be banning tax expenditures, you would gain $1.2 trillion in revenues, without cutting a dime in spending.

That $1.2 trillion could be spend by reducing everyone's tax rates and paying down the debt.

The annual government budget is about $3 trillion. Taxes collected only covers $2.5 trillion. That's a half trillion dollars added to the debt every year. Your math is way too fuzzy.

 

[Care4all]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.

Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.

You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.

There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.

So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.

There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.

You can't deal with "if", you must deal with reality. None of the debt has been paid since Andrew Jackson. Throwing the elderly and poor out in the street by cutting those programs, only creates a homeless and prison problem. And if you think the cons are going to cut out the defense budget, you're really in dream land.

Where did I say throw the elderly and poor out in the street?!?

Tax expenditures have nothing to do with food stamps or Social Security. Or Defense, for that matter.

The savings from eliminating tax expenditures are realized regardless if spending is reduced in other areas. Just be banning tax expenditures, you would gain $1.2 trillion in revenues, without cutting a dime in spending.

That $1.2 trillion could be spend by reducing everyone's tax rates and paying down the debt.

The annual government budget is about $3 trillion. Taxes collected only covers $2.5 trillion. That's a half trillion dollars added to the debt every year. Your math is way too fuzzy.

FYI-
Tax 'expenditures' are the numerous tax DEDUCTIONS we give in the IRS code....that plays 'favorites'....As an example, those who take a mortgage deduction and make the same salary as a person who just pays rent, the family paying rent pays MORE in taxes than the family who pays a mortgage.... so MAJOR FAVORITISM is in the tax code...

I believe he is saying to take all deductions away from the tax code, and let it be the progressive tax code that it was meant to be without any of this "favoritism"....

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

We need to get rid of the unconstitutional programs that are illegally soaking so much of our country's tax money.

Some of us are not liberals. We don't want government involved in things other than protecting our fundamental rights.

The argument that "government is doing SO much more (paying retirement funds, paying unemployment, paying health subsidies, etc. etc.) that to stop those things would cause chaos and pain", is itself bogus.

I'm sorry the government has deliberately gotten its subjects hooked so heavily on the narcotic of "government help and free stuff" and is now sounding warnings about the withdrawal symptoms that will happen if it stops. That doesn't mean that the addiction is a good thing, and doesn't mean we are better off getting more and more hooked.

We MUST stop the addiction (gradually if necessary) before it kills the patient, and must get the patient (that's the country) healthy again. First step is to get rid of the dope peddlers (liberals), while showing the patient that, painful though it my be, breaking the addiction is the only way they can survive. Next is to step down the dosage of drugs (govt help and free stuff), on a schedule that CANNOT be altered or slowed.

The American people have to get used to the fact that the gravy train is doing the country more harm than good, and that they must get used to getting along without it.

Either we will get rid of the gravy train by legislating it out of existence sooner, or we'll get rid of it by its running out of Other People's Money and completely collapsing later. But not as "later" as you might think.

There IS no other way - one of those two things WILL happen.

You are so fucking brainwashed it's not funny. Most welfare goes to Republicans for one. And there is no "gravy train". People on welfare are barely making it.

Besides, when Republicans are in charge, "rights" goes right out the door. They want to be involved in people's bedrooms. No, not involved, "in control".

Prove most welfare goes to republicans. The bottom 20% of voters income wise vote mostly democrat. Nothing you says is valid in any way.

50% of the people in this entire nation eligible to vote, DO NOT VOTE.... you know that, right?

AND MOST of those in the 20% quin-tile of the lowest income are those who DO NOT VOTE....

Welfare recipients do NOT vote....just look at Ferguson....only 12% of their residents voted, 88% eligible to vote, DID NOT VOTE....

so it's BS as usual with the right wing's contention that welfare recipients vote for the rep that will give them welfare... these people, in general, never voted in their lives....

Your source? Also, I'm pointing out that the ones that do vote, vote democrat so.. my point is still valid.

 

[hangover]

$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.

Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.

You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.

There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.

So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.

There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.

You can't deal with "if", you must deal with reality. None of the debt has been paid since Andrew Jackson. Throwing the elderly and poor out in the street by cutting those programs, only creates a homeless and prison problem. And if you think the cons are going to cut out the defense budget, you're really in dream land.

Where did I say throw the elderly and poor out in the street?!?

Tax expenditures have nothing to do with food stamps or Social Security. Or Defense, for that matter.

The savings from eliminating tax expenditures are realized regardless if spending is reduced in other areas. Just be banning tax expenditures, you would gain $1.2 trillion in revenues, without cutting a dime in spending.

That $1.2 trillion could be spend by reducing everyone's tax rates and paying down the debt.

The annual government budget is about $3 trillion. Taxes collected only covers $2.5 trillion. That's a half trillion dollars added to the debt every year. Your math is way too fuzzy.

FYI-
Tax 'expenditures' are the numerous tax DEDUCTIONS we give in the IRS code....that plays 'favorites'....As an example, those who take a mortgage deduction and make the same salary as a person who just pays rent, the family paying rent pays MORE in taxes than the family who pays a mortgage.... so MAJOR FAVORITISM is in the tax code...

I believe he is saying to take all deductions away from the tax code, and let it be the progressive tax code that it was meant to be without any of this "favoritism"....

That isn't going to change. The system is rigged not only for the rich, but mainly for corporate business. GM killed many people with defective ignitions that they knew about for over ten years. That's blatant murder. Yet nobody goes to prison. Big oil kills thousands with their cancer causing pollution, they get a fine that's less than one days profit. Halliburton profited a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, that killed over 5,000 U.S. troops, and cost taxpayers $3 trillion. The tax code is just a distraction from the vast real problem. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[Kondor3]

...The system is rigged not only for the rich, but mainly for corporate business...

True.

...GM killed many people with defective ignitions that they knew about for over ten years. That's blatant murder. Yet nobody goes to prison...

No, that's not murder, but it IS culpable negligence, and those responsible should pay, in a criminal sense.

....Big oil kills thousands with their cancer causing pollution, they get a fine that's less than one days profit...

You cannot blame Big Oil for people wanting to utilize automobiles, which evolved as a fossil-fuel burning type of machine.

Now, if you want 'em hit harder for big oil spills, etc., then a lot more folks would agree.

...Halliburton profited a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, that killed over 5,000 U.S. troops, and cost taxpayers $3 trillion...

If Haliburton didn't start it, then they're not responsible for their profiting by it.

War-profiteering has been around as long as organized warfare has been around.

Get real.

...The tax code is just a distraction from the vast real problem...

What problem is that?

... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

True.

He'll simply try to fill your head full of conspiracy theories.

 

[Clementine]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

Our founders warned of this. Once people knew they could vote themselves money from others, they would do so and keep the robbers in power.

The left makes decisions that indicate they want more people dependent on government and I believe that it's all about keeping power.

That is why the left is against school choice. Despite more students graduating and attending college, the left wants to stop it. Why would Obama defund this after seeing the results? I can only guess that it's because college graduates will not only be smarter, but are unlikely to end up on the liberal plantation. Instead of supporting a program that actually lifts people from poverty for good, the liberals choose to stop it and keep those students in the public schools where they are less likely to graduate and if they do graduate, are less likely to attend college. This diminishes the chance of them overcoming poverty for themselves and future generations.

There is a 98% graduation rate from the better schools and parents want the choice as to where they send their children. Obama and the Dems are taking that choice away. By doing that, they are ending a program that actually worked as intended. It helped people elevate themselves from a life of poverty. Why don't the Dems want that for people?

The OSP spent anywhere from $8,500 to $12,000 per student and had wonderful results. Compare that to public schools who claim to spend $20,000 per student with lousy results. The money thrown at the problem probably does more for the unions than the students. Typical government spending. Higher price for less in return.

High school drops out will be lucky to earn $19,000 a year. Those with only high school diplomas might reach the $28,000 range. Both of those groups will remain on some welfare since they can't make it on their own. College grads generally make over $50,000. It makes no sense that Dems stopped a program that helped students create a brighter future for themselves. Do they fear that these students will stop voting for big government once they realize the power of the individual?

Why Do Politicians Want to End a Program That Actually Works

 

[Coyote]

...Most welfare goes to Republicans for one...

Really?

I was not aware that the collected demographics on Welfare (TANF, Food Stamps, general aid, etc.) included a Party Affiliation component.

Ya learn sumfin' new every day.

Do you have any links to credible data supporting that claim?

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

 

[Clementine]

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

Those programs are hardly in the same category.

People and their employers paid into Social Security for years. Most never received the same amount that they contributed. It is something earned and it took years to earn it.

Unemployment insurance is another thing paid for and you have to work to be eligible.

Welfare and Medicaid are not earned, just given.

Social Security and pensions are among the true entitlements. Most others are simply charity.

 

[Coyote]

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

Those programs are hardly in the same category.

People and their employers paid into Social Security for years. Most never received the same amount that they contributed. It is something earned and it took years to earn it.

Unemployment insurance is another thing paid for and you have to work to be eligible.

Welfare and Medicaid are not earned, just given.

Social Security and pensions are among the true entitlements. Most others are simply charity.

They stated: The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

A mixture of paid for and unpaid for.

 

[deltex1]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

"Here's the problem: poor people actually don't vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

"Here's the problem: poor people actually don't vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:"

Just think if Obama hadn't been running...that 6% would have nose dived

 

[Clementine]

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

Those programs are hardly in the same category.

People and their employers paid into Social Security for years. Most never received the same amount that they contributed. It is something earned and it took years to earn it.

Unemployment insurance is another thing paid for and you have to work to be eligible.

Welfare and Medicaid are not earned, just given.

Social Security and pensions are among the true entitlements. Most others are simply charity.

They stated: The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

A mixture of paid for and unpaid for.

But, even if people are fine with getting benefits due them, it doesn't mean they are okay with a growing welfare state. If Dems wanted people to rise from poverty, they would keep some programs, like school choice, that was working to help people increase their income by finishing school and attending college. I think our current welfare system should be streamlined. Government is too good at throwing a lot of money at a problem only to get few results.

The problem isn't whether we should help people or not, rather how we should do it. A program should work, for starters, and the money should be spent to get the most out of it.

We currently offer free school meals, in some places 3 a day and even throughout the summer. On top of that we have WIC, local food shelters and food stamps. Couldn't we streamline things a bit to ensure that the needy have food without allowing others to get more than they need? I know some personally who get way more than they need and are always giving away cereal from the WIC program. They take it because they can even though it's more than they can use.

The point of any program should be to help people to the point where they no longer need it. Instead, we have more and more needing it while those on it never get off.

 

[Kondor3]

...Most welfare goes to Republicans for one...

Really?

I was not aware that the collected demographics on Welfare (TANF, Food Stamps, general aid, etc.) included a Party Affiliation component.

Ya learn sumfin' new every day.

Do you have any links to credible data supporting that claim?

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

The numbers look just a wee-bit more lopsided when you rule-out Social Security and Medicare benefits, which people have contributed-to, before beginning to take out.

Confine the analysis to TANF and SNAP and LIHEAP, etc. to narrow the range down to TRUE 'welfare' as the term is commonly used.

 

[Contumacious]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

In order to be "electable" republicans will in no way threaten the welfare/warfare police state. Never heard of "compassionate conservatism?


.

 

[Coyote]

...Most welfare goes to Republicans for one...

Really?

I was not aware that the collected demographics on Welfare (TANF, Food Stamps, general aid, etc.) included a Party Affiliation component.

Ya learn sumfin' new every day.

Do you have any links to credible data supporting that claim?

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

The numbers look just a wee-bit more lopsided when you rule-out Social Security and Medicare benefits, which people have contributed-to, before beginning to take out.

Confine the analysis to TANF and SNAP and LIHEAP, etc. to narrow the range down to TRUE 'welfare' as the term is commonly used.

They are still benefits and they get back MORE than they contribute.

 

[Kondor3]

...Most welfare goes to Republicans for one...

Really?

I was not aware that the collected demographics on Welfare (TANF, Food Stamps, general aid, etc.) included a Party Affiliation component.

Ya learn sumfin' new every day.

Do you have any links to credible data supporting that claim?

Pew did an interesting study:The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.​

The numbers look just a wee-bit more lopsided when you rule-out Social Security and Medicare benefits, which people have contributed-to, before beginning to take out.

Confine the analysis to TANF and SNAP and LIHEAP, etc. to narrow the range down to TRUE 'welfare' as the term is commonly used.

They are still benefits and they get back MORE than they contribute.

Oh, c'mon, Coyote, do you REALLY expect everyone to sit still while you try to sell us on the idea that the Common Usage of 'Welfare' is understood to include Social Security and Medicare? Really? Sorry, mine good colleague, but... No Sale.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point of any program should be to help people to the point where they no longer need it. Instead, we have more and more needing it while those on it never get off.

exactly which leads one to think that the liberals use the crippling programs to buy votes and not to give people a helping hand!!

 

[Flopper]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

They can because regardless of the demographic group, there will always be other issue other than the one most important to the group. For example, our welfare recipient maybe an Evangelical Christian strongly against gay marriage and pro-choice or he may feel he lost his job because of illegal immigrants. No large demographic group will have only one issue. So the opposition candidate will work those issues seeking to pickup as many votes as possible withing that group.