What If Scenario: 2014 Dems Take House and 60+ Seats in Senate?

[JakeStarkey]

The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end.

Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states.

Read the npr link....its not 72%
Lean to the left does not mean they are dems.
Therefore we can ignore your assessment.

Go look up the word "similar".

Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined

What a naïve chart that is completely screwed up, Lonestar_logic.

 

[Capstone]

You stupid fuckers seem to think that Democrats and Republicans act differently when elected. Let me give you a clue:

(1) Both parties are corporate tools;
(2) Neither give a rat's ass about American workers;
(3) They will give just enough social welfare assistance to keep the poor powerless and avoid riots;
(4) They will assuage right wing voters by continuing social security and "disability" programs;
(5) And they will pretend to quarrel over "social issues" of little or no real consequence.

The American voter has been reduced to voting for one of two narratives, as in: are we going to war for patriotic or humanitarian reasons? Because, either way, we're going to war.

 

[Redfish]

So, you right wingers are good with having your social security, V.A., and disability benefits cut off? Because I certainly am.

On October 1, many retired veterans (possibly millions) are going to be losing their Tricare Prime medical insurance coverage and will be forced onto a more expensive Tricare Standard program.

I am one of them.

Hence, I discourage any young person from joining the military and serving a full 20 years. You'd be a total sucker to do so. Retiree benefits have been slowly eroded in the past 20 years. The total really adds up now. So don't make a career out of the military, kids. You would be better off serving one enlistment, acquiring a skill, and then making a killing in the corporate world.

Serving 20 years and earning a pension and health insurance coverage is not being "on the dole". Those benefits were bought and paid for, oftentimes with blood.

And now we are being fucked.

But you know what? I would not mind at all if I knew that everyone was taking a bite of the $16 trillion shit sandwich we have to eat.

That means EVERYONE. Not just "the rich". Everyone ran up that bill.

Everyone.

Every time you take a tax deduction, you are "on the dole". You are adding to the debt. So be very careful with the self-righteous "on the dole" bullshit.

It isn't like a credit card debt. It is an expansion of the money supply that is essential to keep up with economic growth. Without debt creation, we have no way of expanding the money supply.

So NO, "future generations" will not need to pay it off. Even if they did--they would pay themselves.

It's thinking like this that prevents progress, and keeps the American workers living in poverty.

That is nothing but bullshit debunked Keynesian economic fantasy. WTF do you think happens to the value of each dollar when billions more are pumped into the economy and are not backed by anything of value? Its called inflation and it destroys economies.

As to paying off the debt, how do our kids pay themselves when much of the debt is held by china?

its thinking like yours that puts entire countries in poverty.

 

[Redfish]

You stupid fuckers seem to think that Democrats and Republicans act differently when elected. Let me give you a clue:

(1) Both parties are corporate tools;
(2) Neither give a rat's ass about American workers;
(3) They will give just enough social welfare assistance to keep the poor powerless and avoid riots;
(4) They will assuage right wing voters by continuing social security and "disability" programs;
(5) And they will pretend to quarrel over "social issues" of little or no real consequence.

The American voter has been reduced to voting for one of two narratives, as in: are we going to war for patriotic or humanitarian reasons? Because, either way, we're going to war.

90% of americans do not support military action in Syria. There probably won't be any. The will of the people counts.

 

[francoHFW]

And since blacks vote 97 per cent Dem lately, and are discriminated against for jobs, they skew the stats. Just fecking say it, dingbat Texan lol. If you take them out of it, there is no difference between the number of each party on welfare or anything else, and Dems earn more...

 

[Redfish]

And since blacks vote 97 per cent Dem lately, and are discriminated against for jobs, they skew the stats. Just fecking say it, dingbat Texan lol. If you take them out of it, there is no difference between the number of each party on welfare or anything else, and Dems earn more...

you mean the dems are greedy evil capitalists? better not tell your left wing base.

 

[francoHFW]

There is a huge difference between the parties. Rich Dems want to raise their own taxes, help the non rich with their pay, education and training, and want to protect the environment, and mega rich idiot Pubs want to screw the workers and the environment, and pay for the total BS Pub Propaganda that makes moron haters vote against their own interests. Read something and wake the feck up...

OP- ridiculous, except for raising the taxes on the over 250k rich to go with the rest FOUR PER CENT FER CHRISSAKE. And a jobs act and no more phoney crises, so we can complete the recovery.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And since blacks vote 97 per cent Dem lately, and are discriminated against for jobs, they skew the stats. Just fecking say it, dingbat Texan lol. If you take them out of it, there is no difference between the number of each party on welfare or anything else, and Dems earn more...

you mean the dems are greedy evil capitalists? better not tell your left wing base.

You better forget what you just typed before you go into another "leftys are all on welfare" thread

 

[francoHFW]

And since blacks vote 97 per cent Dem lately, and are discriminated against for jobs, they skew the stats. Just fecking say it, dingbat Texan lol. If you take them out of it, there is no difference between the number of each party on welfare or anything else, and Dems earn more...

you mean the dems are greedy evil capitalists? better not tell your left wing base.

NO, they're smart, compassionate, fair, intelligent, better educated, not brainwashed Pub capitalists, stupid lol.

 

[Redfish]

And since blacks vote 97 per cent Dem lately, and are discriminated against for jobs, they skew the stats. Just fecking say it, dingbat Texan lol. If you take them out of it, there is no difference between the number of each party on welfare or anything else, and Dems earn more...

you mean the dems are greedy evil capitalists? better not tell your left wing base.

NO, they're smart, compassionate, fair, intelligent, better educated, not brainwashed Pub capitalists, stupid lol.

your ignorance is showing, frankie. better pulll your panties up.

generalizations like that just make you look like a complete fool. was the woman who was ranting about a free obamaphone smart, compassionate, fair, intelligent, educated, not brainwashed???

one thing for sure, she is a liberal democrat.

 

[Redfish]

And since blacks vote 97 per cent Dem lately, and are discriminated against for jobs, they skew the stats. Just fecking say it, dingbat Texan lol. If you take them out of it, there is no difference between the number of each party on welfare or anything else, and Dems earn more...

you mean the dems are greedy evil capitalists? better not tell your left wing base.

You better forget what you just typed before you go into another "leftys are all on welfare" thread

like it or not, the majority of people on welfare vote democrat. why do you think that a welfare slavery class is good for america? why do democrats want to keep people down on the welfare plantation? could it be to buy their votes and keep them ignorant?

 

[Capstone]

90% of americans do not support military action in Syria. There probably won't be any. The will of the people counts.

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

 

[francoHFW]

50- She was black, and so are the welfare people that give Dems the lead on welfare, dumbass. AND Raygun started that phone program, Booosh enlarged it- thay's just Pubcrappe that seems to be all you know, brainwashed twit of the greedy a-hole Pubs...LOL

 

[Redfish]

50- She was black, and so are the welfare people that give Dems the lead on welfare, dumbass. AND Raygun started that phone program, Booosh enlarged it- thay's just Pubcrappe that seems to be all you know, brainwashed twit of the greedy a-hole Pubs...LOL

get over the Reagan and Bush bullshit. just because they did something stupid does not make it smart when obama does it.

BTW, the gap between rich and poor has expanded during obama's 5 years, obama is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. But since he did it, I guess you think its wonderful.

you are one of the dumbest posters on this message board. you may qualify for my ignore list.

 

[Redfish]

90% of americans do not support military action in Syria. There probably won't be any. The will of the people counts.

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

your point is-------------------?

 

[francoHFW]

90% of americans do not support military action in Syria. There probably won't be any. The will of the people counts.

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

All we've been giving to the rebels has been humanitarian aid, boots and uniforms- NOW we're giving arms to the good rebels.TRY WATCHING SOME REAL NEWS WITH ACTUAL JOURNALISTS ON SITE...

He would have done it without congress, but probably not without the Brits...

 

[Redfish]

90% of americans do not support military action in Syria. There probably won't be any. The will of the people counts.

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

All we've been giving to the rebels has been humanitarian aid, boots and uniforms- NOW we're giving arms to the good rebels.TRY WATCHING SOME REAL NEWS WITH ACTUAL JOURNALISTS ON SITE...

He would have done it without congress, but probably not without the Brits...

Yeah, helping the "rebels" worked so well for us in Lybia and Egypt But I guess obama's goal is to have the muslim brotherhood in charge of every country in the mid east.


Other than regime change, which you libtards alwasy accuse Bush and Reagan of, we have no business in Syria's civil war. The USA has no vital interest in who runs syria, because not matter who comes out on top, they will be controlled by Russia and Iran.

 

[francoHFW]

50- She was black, and so are the welfare people that give Dems the lead on welfare, dumbass. AND Raygun started that phone program, Booosh enlarged it- thay's just Pubcrappe that seems to be all you know, brainwashed twit of the greedy a-hole Pubs...LOL

get over the Reagan and Bush bullshit. just because they did something stupid does not make it smart when obama does it.

BTW, the gap between rich and poor has expanded during obama's 5 years, obama is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. But since he did it, I guess you think its wonderful.

you are one of the dumbest posters on this message board. you may qualify for my ignore list.

You must have the attention span of a gnat. HISTORY MATTERS. THE RICH POOR GAP WILL CONTINUE TO GROW UNTIL the rich pay their fair share. They pay less than the middle class now. When the feds cut taxes, state and local make up for it with higher taxes and fees which kill the nonrich...ie, YOU, hater dupe.

 

[Capstone]

90% of americans do not support military action in Syria. There probably won't be any. The will of the people counts.

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

your point is-------------------?

...that the "will of the people" and $3.59 might get you a small coffee at Starbucks, but it takes a lot more green and influence to shape the geopolitical landscape; and the real power brokers in this country (I.E. those who buy and sell politicians and lawmakers on a regular basis) have an uncanny knack for imposing their wills on the masses.

 

[Redfish]

50- She was black, and so are the welfare people that give Dems the lead on welfare, dumbass. AND Raygun started that phone program, Booosh enlarged it- thay's just Pubcrappe that seems to be all you know, brainwashed twit of the greedy a-hole Pubs...LOL

get over the Reagan and Bush bullshit. just because they did something stupid does not make it smart when obama does it.

BTW, the gap between rich and poor has expanded during obama's 5 years, obama is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. But since he did it, I guess you think its wonderful.

you are one of the dumbest posters on this message board. you may qualify for my ignore list.

You must have the attention span of a gnat. HISTORY MATTERS. THE RICH POOR GAP WILL CONTINUE TO GROW UNTIL the rich pay their fair share. They pay less than the middle class now. When the feds cut taxes, state and local make up for it with higher taxes and fees which kill the nonrich...ie, YOU, hater dupe.

then why hasn't obama done anything to fix it. he has had over 5 years, 2 with complete control in congress.

How much (by %) is a fair share for the rich to pay? 50%, 80%, 100% ? how much is "fair" ?

if you are bitching about the tax code and deductions etc, why hasn't obama done anything to fix that in 5 years? The tax code was written by congress, congress has been dominated by democrats for most of the last 80 years. Why have they passed a tax code that hurts poor people--your words not mine, since the poor pay no federal income taxes and infact have negative taxes due to EIC.