Just Shoot Me Now

This democracy thing, what a joke. To think that all you need to vote is to be an American Citizen (for now) and to have a pulse (not in Chicago) and that automatically qualifies you to have a say in how my life will be governed. No education, no training, no qualifications necessary, you can be dumber then a box of bidens (or as dumb as) no problem, just don’t eat that hanging chad when you’re finished. It really is a suckey system.

And this is why we are doomed.

No, it’s not a race thing, Robin is right in that many white folks are equally clueless, and we could make it a separate post to dive into the reason why most feel disconnected; prevaricating politicians, a stifled and bias news media, the feeling that our leaders are all basically lying no good do nothings (except for my guy) and that the problems are just too large to do anything about them, so let me get mine now and STFU.

I get that microphones make some people nervous, and that is probably why each was given about 4 or 5 chances to gather themselves and say “What was that again?”

This is NOT what Jefferson had in mind.

Comments are closed.

  1. Troy

    I’ve long said that states must start to implement a voter card. In order to get one, you simply have to meet current eligibility requirements plus pass with an 80 or better the standard citizenship test.

    Jesus, I bet most of those morons don’t even know the three branches of government. Christ!

    Thumb up 2

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Per asswipes like CW, you shouldn’t even have to be an American to vote in our elections – after all, shouldn’t everyone have a say in voting for the “biggest asshole most powerful man in the world”?

    Thumb up 0

  3. Jim

    Oddly enough, originally, everyone *wasn’t* allowed to vote. It was originally thought only landowners would be allowed to vote because landowners were educated and had a vested interest. Plus, if you weren’t competent, you would normally *lose* your land after enough bad business decisions or investments. Hence “constitutional republic” and *not* “democracy”.

    Thumb up 5

  4. Seattle Outcast

    I’d say they were on to something. Quite obviously, there is a huge portion of the population that is too fucking stupid to be allowed to actually have a say in how things are run.

    I’d boil it down to paying taxes: if you don’t pay any, you don’t get to say how it gets spent.

    Thumb up 2

  5. CM

    I’d say they were on to something. Quite obviously, there is a huge portion of the population that is too fucking stupid to be allowed to actually have a say in how things are run.

    It’s possibly as much as 47%.

    Thumb up 4

  6. Iconoclast

    Look on the bright side — perhaps such people who are so full of abject apathy that they cannot be bothered to be the least bit informed about political issues, may likewise be too full of apathy to even bother voting.

    Some of these people apparently have no clue who’s who in the politcal arena (except for the sitting prez, perhaps), so maybe opening a ballot full of names they have no clue about might be intimidating enough to make it not worth the bother.

    Just tryin’ to see the glass as half-full…

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    That’s possibly why voting turnout is so much lower for low-income people (contrary to the narrative that the Dems are trying to keep people poor, and make more people poor, in order to secure a permanent majority voting block). They’re spending most of their time dealing with their own issues/problems to spend time getting informed about who to vote for.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    Just can’t wait until this becomes an ‘full-on’ issue come election day(s)

    Nearly half of the young voters who in 2008 registered and cast their first presidential ballot may have not updated their voter registration, according to a new survey, a situation that could most impact President Obama considering that voting bloc helped him to victory four years ago.

    Sat Wat!

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT

    It’s possibly as much as 47%.

    If you were attempting to mock the messenger of this horrible fact CM, I think the stupid is on you. Civilizations have know for millennia that no system of government which allows the masses to elect their leaders can sustain itself when said masses discover they have the ability to use their vote to give their leaders the power to confiscate other people’s wealth and pay them of with some part of that stolen wealth. The Greek states that gave rise to the democratic system saw this problem for what it was but could not survive its consequences. The Roman Empire followed the same path, only their turn towards a dictator to mitigate the problems only dragged out their downfall. Tocqueville reiterated this very fact some 2 centuries ago as well. And here we are today with most Western democracies replaying this very same thing out yet again.

    Any system of government that steals form the productive to buy the votes of the unproductive dooms everyone under it. The reasoning behind why this theft is committed, no matter how nobly packaged to make the shit sandwich being served palatable, notwithstanding. Collectivism at any level past the family unit or small clan, simply isn’t viable, because man always will be straddled with the curse of self interest. The fact that the “enlightened” threw out old religion and replaced said fanatical devotion with the state have only guaranteed us hell right here on earth.

    When any system of government gives uninformed people, especially those that are only interested in whom will pay the most for their vote, the same power as informed hard working people, you as a society of that system are doomed. It is only a question of time. We are at a tipping point today because fucking idiots that are far more interested in following the shenanigans of idiots Lindsey Lohan, Sooki, or Madonna, get their knowledge from reality TV shows, and in general let the basest and most petty of emotion instead of logic rule their decisions, now are starting to outnumber the rest of us. We are even worse off when ideologues like you that hope to keep profiting politically from the stupid demonize us for pointing out how fucked up what we have is.

    Nothing dispirits me more than being told by some brainwashed moron trying to tell me how unfair it is for someone that works hard and doesn’t just choose to “live it all large and in charge” to end up well off, while some poor lazy asshole that would be continent to live in momma’s basement, hit the bong, and play “Call of Duty” all day long, “living it large and in charge”, doesn’t. After all, aren’t we all not the same according to some old document, put together by some evil white guys that even owned slaves for Christ sake, and thus entitled to the same outcome? Yeah, how unfair….

    Thumb up 8

  10. CM

    Civilizations have know for millennia that no system of government which allows the masses to elect their leaders can sustain itself when said masses discover they have the ability to use their vote to give their leaders the power to confiscate other people’s wealth and pay them of with some part of that stolen wealth.

    Yes, I know ‘taker’s versus ‘makers’ , make people poor so they’ll vote for you, etc etc.
    YAWN. It’s all so painfully lame and ridiculously over-simplistic. It’s what I hear whenever I turn on Fox News (which I’ve been doing a lot lately to see if they actually offer anything else – I figured perhaps I always just timed it badly….alas, all they do is what you do, which is repeat the same old ideological mantras over and over again).

    Any system of government that steals form the productive to buy the votes of the unproductive dooms everyone under it.

    It just doesn’t stack up. The lower the income, the lower the inclination to vote. So, if anything, they would be possibly losing votes.

    When any system of government gives uninformed people, especially those that are only interested in whom will pay the most for their vote, the same power as informed hard working people, you as a society of that system are doomed.

    If I believed sufficient people thought as you do, I would follow some sort of ‘we are doomed’ philosophy too. Fortunately I’m too much of an optimist. I think you’re in a distinct minority.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Iconoclast

    That’s possibly why voting turnout is so much lower for low-income people (contrary to the narrative that the Dems are trying to keep people poor, and make more people poor, in order to secure a permanent majority voting block).

    Well, for starters, the “narrative” as you call it isn’t about keeping people “poor”, it’s about keeping them dependent on government handouts, which ain’t necessarily the same thing. It may be quite possible to live a fairly comfortable lifestyle while on the government dole, depending on how modest one’s standards of “comfort” and great one’s lack of ambition.

    In fact, one could argue that all of these liberal programs are ostensibly designed to make people not poor; what else would the phrase “war on poverty” mean, if not the notion of fighting against poverty to make it go away? The right-wing “narrative”, as you call it, is simply that the net effect of these programs is indeed to make people dependent on government.

    Now, whether this dependence translates into votes for Democrats is fertile ground for debate, but even if it can be shown that there is no such translation, that doesn’t necessarily mean that such isn’t the intent. It would only mean that the intended outcome is not achieved, if indeed that was the intended outcome. Another conservative “narrative”, after all, is that liberal programs simply don’t work as intended, which is another fertile area of debate, depending on whether the “intended” outcome can even be determined. Is the intended outcome of the “war on poverty” the elimination of “poverty”, or government dependence by the masses? Again, the observable result would seem to be the latter, in too many cases.

    Finally, I would point out that “ignorant” and “poor” are most certainly not synonymous. What we are discussion in this thread are the blatantly ignorant, at least when it comes to things political — the people interviewed may indeed be quite knowledgeable on such things as celebrity trivia, latest fashion trends, who’s who in on the music scene, or whatever. So, while they may be complete stumps when it comes to political matters, that doesn’t mean they don’t have any money to spend…

    Thumb up 6

  12. CM

    Great response Iconoclast. I clicked on ‘thumbs up’.
    I would certainly be interesting in trying to work out what defines “making people dependent on government” (which implies intent). Does the EITC qualify (the tax credit which tries to make up for the fact that all low and a lot of middle class jobs pay too little)?

    @MY – LMAO, I had not seen that! That hospital is 1km from where I’m currently sitting. Sitting quite comfortably too, not being the person in the article.

    Thumb up 0

  13. AlexInCT

    Well, for starters, the “narrative” as you call it isn’t about keeping people “poor”, it’s about keeping them dependent on government handouts, which ain’t necessarily the same thing.

    Really? The logic to understand that the only condition this government model can guarantee is equal poverty and misery for all, is fairly simple. I firmly believe that unless people are unleashed to create wealth the amount you have is finite. If you are a leftist you believe for sure wealth is finite regardless, so when leftists do their thing wealth truly becomes not just limited, it is often destroyed. Check out history for the proof. USSR, North Korea, and even Venezuela come to mind.

    Now think of the scenario where you have a limited supply of wealth to spread around and a lot of recipients. What you end up with is a ton of recipients with a moderate amount of cash, many with far more than they would have naturally earned, and no discipline around that wealth. After all, once you redistribute this way and reset the game once, why not do it every time someone feels the game has “cheated” them?

    Even if we ended up with everyone a millionaire, it would be meaningless. When everyone is a millionaire, basic food stuff would cost thousands of dollars. Nobody will work unless they are paid in the millions either. Even the guy asking you if you want fries with that will want his millions for that job. Suddenly being a millionaire doesn’t mean you are living large and in charge. We will have a whole load of people with less buying power in that dysfunctional unicorn society. For all intents and purposes they will be poor, even if the numbers show otherwise. Again I can reference Venezuela or Zimbabwe as examples.

    Yes, government will get their dependant base, but please do not be under any illusion that this base will be anything but poor and miserable. History has shown this in every damned case where the leftists have played out their utopian society bullshit.

    Thumb up 3

  14. AlexInCT

    @MY – LMAO, I had not seen that! That hospital is 1km from where I’m currently sitting. Sitting quite comfortably too, not being the person in the article.

    I worked with a gent that felt IT was not a secure career and decided to do nursing on the side to have sonmething else to fall back on, and if you hear the stories of what shows up at the emergency room on weekends, yes, even here in enlightened blue CT, you would lose all hope for humanity.

    Let’s just say that my buddy’s nick names where “The hotdog extractor” or “beer bottle puller”, and like the example above, these items came from the same general anatomical area. His nastiest story was the lady with the stuck dog…..

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Really? The logic to understand that the only condition this government model can guarantee is equal poverty and misery for all, is fairly simple.

    I don’t accept your premise so the rest is moot. The removal of all incentives is pure communism. Nobody here, and certainly not Obama, is even remotely advocating anything like that.

    Klein has calculated the tax burdens for Obama, Romney and the average American household under the current situation, and then under Romney’s proposed system and what Obama proposes.
    It shows that if Romney’s plan is paid for, the average American household will have a tax burden of 13% instead of 8%.

    Again, how far does “keeping them dependent on government handouts” extend? To the EITC system?

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    Let’s just say that my buddy’s nick names where “The hotdog extractor” or “beer bottle puller”, and like the example above, these items came from the same general anatomical area. His nastiest story was the lady with the stuck dog…..

    ;-(

    Thumb up 1

  17. Miguelito

    It shows that if Romney’s plan is paid for, the average American household will have a tax burden of 13% instead of 8%.

    Quite conveniently, there is no comparison to an “Obama’s plan (paid for)” which is not happening. Even if he gets the tax raises he wants against the “rich” it won’t come near paying for what’s being paid out by the gov’t today. Hence the nearly $5T more in debt in >4 years.

    Thumb up 2

  18. CM

    I thought Obama’s plan pays for itself without adding to the deficit (because much more revenue is gained by the richer paying slightly more)?
    I also thought the reason there have always been two Romney columns (paid for and not paid for) in charts like this is because he has refused to say exactly how he’d pay for it.

    Anyway, Romney’s ‘paid for plan’ represents a 5% tax increase on “an average household (two adults, one child, making the median household income of $49,445)”.
    So less consuming, meaning less employment. Unless it’s consuming through household debt. And around we go again.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Xetrov

    I thought Obama’s plan pays for itself without adding to the deficit (because much more revenue is gained by the richer paying slightly more)?

    So about that bridge you wanted to buy…

    Thumb up 3

  20. CM

    So about that bridge you wanted to buy…

    I’d be asking questions about the bridge (that’s what I’m doing) so that doesn’t really work.
    And anyway the same could be said about anyone who think Romney’s plan doesn’t increase taxes on the middle class.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    I firmly believe that unless people are unleashed to create wealth the amount you have is finite. If you are a leftist you believe for sure wealth is finite regardless, so when leftists do their thing wealth truly becomes not just limited, it is often destroyed. Check out history for the proof. USSR, North Korea, and even Venezuela come to mind.

    This piece mentions the ‘history’ of where the rewards of productivity gains actually go.

    But Kessler assumes — and this is the very essence of the “trickle-down” argument — that workers reap the rewards of productivity gains. Believing and asserting that requires either ignorance or willful denial of economic history. The only time in U.S. history when workers substantially benefited from productivity gains was the three decades that followed World War II, when median household income and productivity gains both increased by 102 percent. Not coincidentally, that was also the only period of genuine union power in U.S. history, and the time when the tax code was at its most progressive. During the past quarter-century, as progressivity was lessened and unions diminished, all productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent, according to research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    So the ‘model’ you are advocating just doesn’t happen. If you think it has happened, where?

    Also from the link:

    The problem is not just that everyone but the wealthy is claiming a smaller share of the nation’s income; the absolute amount of income they’re getting is declining as well. Median household income has dropped to the levels of the mid-1990s, according to Pew analysis of census data, while the income of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose by a tidy $200 billion last year, according to data released this month by Forbes magazine.

    So the pie keeps getting larger but the pieces the non-wealthy get are even smaller than they were before.

    Thumb up 0

  22. balthazar

    Again, how far does “keeping them dependent on government handouts” extend? To the EITC system?

    Thats one of the first things that needs to go, if i payed 1000 total to the government, EITC lets me get a refund of 2000. even though i never even payed that much.

    So much bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    Thats one of the first things that needs to go, if i payed 1000 total to the government, EITC lets me get a refund of 2000. even though i never even payed that much.

    So much bullshit.

    So if EITC goes, what happens to those low to middle income earners who will suffer an even larger real decline in spending power? How would it not lead to significantly less consuming (so more unemployment), or more debt. How does it not lead to a huge recession?
    And please don’t say employers would magically pay them more (because they wouldn’t be paying as much tax). For a start, the low to middle income earners would have much less to spend, and it’s those consumers employers rely on to keep their businesses going. And even if some sort of magic occured and there were additional profits generated, we know that the rewards of productivity gains stay at the top.

    It’s welfare. Nothing else.

    If employers passed along the rewards then the EITC probably wouldn’t be needed. They don’t , so it is. Otherwise the whole equation would be even more lop-sided.

    Thumb up 0

  24. AlexInCT

    I don’t accept your premise so the rest is moot.

    I guess the facts of how this shit has worked out for the last 100 years, in every progressive utopian society that put this nonsense into practice, including the EU in it’s current death throes (check out Spain and Greece), have just been trumped by CM and his magical thinking. Cover your eyes and ears and yell “NAH NAH NAH” some more CM.

    The removal of all incentives is pure communism.

    Really? So if they remove just some incentives everyone keeps playing? And when they remove some more, since it isn’t all, it is still OK. Shit, by this logic, as long as your remove all incentives but one, you should rake it all in. Of course, as usual, reality has proven otherwise. Some incentives are far more powerful than others. The punitive ones especially serve to demotivate heavily.

    Maybe I should just learn to be a tax cheat like most of the liberal elite that constantly tell us peons how patriotic it is for them to take more of their money from us…..

    Nobody here, and certainly not Obama, is even remotely advocating anything like that.

    Shit, they could have fooled me with all that talk that the rich, whom already pay ridiculously high and disproportional amount of our taxes, are not paying their fair share. Especially when the behemoth government always needs money and that “fair share” threshold keeps moving higher and higher. But hey, I am the fool for taking them at their word and looking at their action instead of believing the nonsense you peddle to excuse their abhorrent behavior.

    Klein has calculated the tax burdens for Obama, Romney and the average American household under the current situation, and then under Romney’s proposed system and what Obama proposes.

    Yeah sure, I will take another one of Obama’s DNC media shills and their hocus pocus seriously. I don’t give a flying fuck which plan gives the government more money. I want government to stop spending so f-ing much and leave people with their income. Obama’s plan probably does even more damage to the economy as well by punishing those that make jobs. But to idiots like that author it sticks it to those that are better off than they are, and it feeds the behemoth, so that makes it all Kosher. F- that.

    And I am going to go out on a limb and bet that this guy cherry picked his numbers for this exercise. Does this tax plan include the effects of Obamacare on us all? What about the economic impact as more people become dependant on the government for handouts? My healthcare costs went up 11% this year alone. I was told to expect that to double next year. I would not be surprised my employer drops healthcare in the next year or two if Obamacare is allowed to stay around to fuck the economy even harder than the other bullshit these marxist have done the last 3 years have been doing.

    If Obama really wants to impress me he proposes a plan that cuts government spending by about $1.5 trillion year, practically all of it from the big entitlement programs that are unconstitutional and bleeding us dry to buy democrats votes, and makes everyone pay the same percentage in taxes so we all have the same skin in the game. And then I will really blow my head off if Dirty Harry Reid passes a budget after 3 plus years of avoiding that so they wouldn’t have to explain WTF those horrible red numbers mean to the average American.

    Class envy politics suck ass. This assault on the rich will mean that the depressed economic state we are in will stay around even longer. That is, if we are lucky and it doesn’t get even worse. This news isn’t news to people like me that don’t believe in this class warfare nonsense.

    Thumb up 0

  25. balthazar

    It follows that as incomes are more and more disproportionate, the share of overall tax paid is just as disproportionate. This is despite the top tax rate being historically at the lowest end of the spectrum.

    This stupidity is why your useless to talk to, they own 20% of the wealth BUT PAY 40% OF THE TAXES.

    How is that “fair”?

    Thumb up 1

  26. CM

    I guess the facts of how this shit has worked out for the last 100 years, in every progressive utopian society that put this nonsense into practice, including the EU in it’s current death throes (check out Spain and Greece), have just been trumped by CM and his magical thinking. Cover your eyes and ears and yell “NAH NAH NAH” some more CM.

    What nonsense are you talking about?
    As I say, I’m not the one employing magic here. I’ve put some reality in my posts by way of numbers. You’re still talking entirely in pure ideological terms.

    Really?

    Yes.

    So if they remove just some incentives everyone keeps playing?

    Of course they do. Did no new businesses close when tax rates were over 70% because owners didn’t want to have to pay that rate? Did existing businesses all close because it just wasn’t worth it to the owners? No, of course not, because it was still worthwhile even with extremely high rates.
    You’ve got this whole thing wildly out of perspective. Obama isn’t advocating going back to anything like those days.

    Shit, by this logic, as long as your remove all incentives but one, you should rake it all in. Of course, as usual, reality has proven otherwise. Some incentives are far more powerful than others. The punitive ones especially serve to demotivate heavily.

    Again, you’re arguing ideologically, against a straw man, and against a straw man President. There is far more financial incentive to work towards have a successful business than most other times. Again, the income of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose by a tidy $200 billion last year, while everyone but the wealthy is claiming a smaller share of the nation’s income. The absolute amount of income they’re getting is declining as well. Median household income has dropped to the levels of the mid-1990s. So the rich have the ability to keep getting far richer without having to pay people more. In the face of that any argument that these days there’s no incentive to get rich rings incredibly hollow.

    Maybe I should just learn to be a tax cheat like most of the liberal elite that constantly tell us peons how patriotic it is for them to take more of their money from us…..

    Knock yourself out.

    Shit, they could have fooled me with all that talk that the rich, whom already pay ridiculously high and disproportional amount of our taxes, are not paying their fair share.

    Your “own side” seem to have fooled you.
    So you dispute that when taking into account ALL taxes, the share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income? On what basis? Or are you going to just ignore that and keep repeating the same vague ideological mantra?

    Especially when the behemoth government always needs money and that “fair share” threshold keeps moving higher and higher. But hey, I am the fool for taking them at their word and looking at their action instead of believing the nonsense you peddle to excuse their abhorrent behavior.

    I’ve said it before – the ‘fair share’ argument is well and good but I prefer the ‘economic sense’ argument. If the poor and middle class don’t get a disproportionate share of the growing pie, everyone but a declining number of the super-rich is going to lose. How are they not, when the vast bulk of consumers have less money to spend?
    What nonsense am I peddling Alex? Can you actually point to something specifically rather than just doing the usual vague accusation shit?

    And I am going to go out on a limb and bet that this guy cherry picked his numbers for this exercise.

    Ah right, of course, if you don’t like it, it must therefore be fraudulent. Gotcha.

    Does this tax plan include the effects of Obamacare on us all?

    Read it.

    What about the economic impact as more people become dependant on the government for handouts?

    How does that logic work? As the economy improves, less people will qualify.

    …..and makes everyone pay the same percentage in taxes so we all have the same skin in the game.

    It looks like you kinda do. At least, when looking at ALL taxes, it seems the share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.

    Class envy politics suck ass.

    True, but buying into that narrative hook, line and sinker also sucks ass.

    This assault on the rich will mean that the depressed economic state we are in will stay around even longer.

    What “assualt on the rich”? Explain in detail how Obama is planning an assault on the rich?

    That is, if we are lucky and it doesn’t get even worse. This news isn’t news to people like me that don’t believe in this class warfare nonsense.

    You clearly DO believe in class warfare. In this very thread you’ve sprung to defend obvious class warfare statements made by one of the Presidential candidates. It doesn’t really get more transparent than that.

    This stupidity is why your useless to talk to, they own 20% of the wealth BUT PAY 40% OF THE TAXES.

    How is that “fair”?

    For the millionth time, it’s “you’re” not “your”.
    If you look at the link I provided (instead of ignoring it and just repeating yourself), you’ll see that the top 1% of earners get 21% of all income, and pay 21.6% of all taxes. That seems fair to me.
    If that analysis is wrong, you should certainly expain why.

    Because progressives say it is so…..

    Don’t you know anything?

    /sarc off

    Am I the only one that can see my post with the link?
    I know how much you both despise lazy people……;-)

    Thumb up 0

  27. Xetrov

    Klein has calculated

    You really have no ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing sources, CM.

    Anyway, in regard to the ‘dependent on government earns votes’ topic, this article tries to answer it.

    According to a 2007 Campbell Public Affairs institute survey…63 percent of welfare recipients go Democratic, 67 percent of food-stamp users, 74 percent of those on Medicaid, and 81 percent of those in public housing.

    The Democratic slant extends to those receiving federal unemployment benefits. In a 2011 NPR/Kaiser Family poll, 42 percent of the long-term unemployed identified themselves as Democrats; only 16 percent went Republican.

    Get enough people dependent on the government, and it doesn’t matter that less of them vote. If the general public is about split down the middle, get even 5% of them dependent on the government, and poof, majority.

    Thumb up 2

  28. CM

    You really have no ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing sources, CM.

    As you know I don’t generally criticise sources (I generally try and play the ball and not the man). You’re thinking of someone else. I generally criticise people for criticising sources and ignoring the substance.
    I also don’t get what point you’re making with that link. Ezra Klein isn’t a ‘reporter’. And?
    Rothstein sounds charming though.

    As for the Daily Beast quote, I don’t see that it makes the case (or gets even close). It’s also contradicted by

    1. Gallup finds that 50 percent of Americans of those in poverty consider themselves politically independent — a far higher percentage than those who identify as Democrats or Republicans

    2. 96 percent of Americans have received assistance from the federal government at some point in their life

    3.

    Romney’s likely to get 95 electoral votes from the top “moocher” states. Obama can only count on 5: “Three of the states with the lowest number of non-filers are solidly conservative: Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming. Two, New Hampshire and Virginia, are swing states. All the rest are solidly Democratic, including half of New England. All told, Obama gets 50 electoral votes from the “maker” states to Romney’s 9 — 17 are tossups — while Romney gets 96 electoral votes from the “taker” states to Obama’s 5, with 29 as tossups.”

    4.

    How do the ’47 percent’ vote? Republican, as it turns out. “Mitt Romney asserted that the 47 percent of Americans who had no federal income tax liability would ‘vote for the president no matter what.’ Actually, a lot them don’t vote, and of those who do, many vote Republican….In 2008, when voter turnout rates were at or around record highs, fewer than half (44.9 percent) of adults in households making less than $30,000 per year voted, according to Census Bureau data. And of those who did vote, a substantial chunk voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate: 25 percent of those making under $15,000, and 37 percent of those making $15,000 to $30,000…Older Americans vote in very high numbers. In 2008, 70.2 percent of people over age 65 voted, according to the Census Bureau. And in that election, older voters supported John McCain over President Obama by an eight-percentage-point margin, with 53 percent voting for Mr. McCain. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll, conducted last week, showed likely voters in the same age group supporting Mr. Romney by a 15-point margin.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/19/wonkbook-the-47-percent-by-the-numbers/

    I don’t buy the whole ‘get people dependent on the government’ argument. To me it’s just a cynical and lazy argument which can’t be supported by evidence (if that’s what Democratic adminstrations have been trying to do over the decades hey appear to have done an astoundingly bad job given that more private jobs and growth has occured under their leadership).
    Even those stats you quote don’t prove anything. You think they suggest something, but that’s not even close to proving. You need to wrap a narrative around them before they mean anything at all.

    Thumb up 0

  29. CM

    Here is the graph of the 47% – a.k.a. “non-payers” – by state. The ten states with the highest share of “non-payers” are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the states with the smallest share of “non-payers” are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

    http://i.imgur.com/xaycH.jpg

    Thumb up 0

  30. Iconoclast

    I don’t buy the whole ‘get people dependent on the government’ argument.

    You’re free to buy or not buy anything you like, but you’re choosing to not buy something doesn’t make it not true…

    To me it’s just a cynical and lazy argument which can’t be supported by evidence…

    I guess that depends on where you look and what you’re willing to accept…

    Since you seem to like graphs so much (from the article)…

    Nearly Half of Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes

    More then 70% of Federal Spending goes to Dependence Programs

    Welfare and Low-Income Health Care Assistance Surges

    College Education: Dependence on Government Doubles

    Thumb up 0