Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Willthe poor come out and support Obama again

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 10:50:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"This year it ain't about Obama, it's about yo mama."

You guys listen to debates and marketing, and argue over records and decisions... ethics, competence, economic policies... That stuff matters so little that it's really a waste of time.

Either the poor will come out in large enough numbers to elect the Democrat, or they will not. I hear NPR say that the polls had Romney and Obama in a dead-heat at 47% of likely voters. Problem is, we don't know who the likely voters are until they either show up or not on election day.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 11:17:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Message to Democrats:

It is vital that every Democrat supporter on this site exercises his or her right to vote and mobilizes all their Democrat friends and family do the same.

Remember, the last time an election was this close the Republicans managed to get George "Dubya" Bush elected by enlisting the help of his brother, Jeb Bush, in Florida to void a large number of voting slips that were deemed to be "spoiled" (i.e. they had a cross next the Democrat candidate"s name).

Don"t let the Republicans get away with the same dirty trick again, if you are a Democrat, make sure you vote!

Message to Republicans:

Mitt Romney"s got this one in the bag: he"ll walk this election; Obama is dead and buried; there"s no need for you to waste your valuable time lining up behind all the other Republican supporters to vote for him. Anyway, what difference could your one vote make?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 11:36:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why the poor keep voting (Dem) against their best interest, is beyond me. I guess they wish to continue being poor.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 11:39:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:17:56 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Message to Democrats:

It is vital that every Democrat supporter on this site exercises his or her right to vote and mobilizes all their Democrat friends and family do the same.

Remember, the last time an election was this close the Republicans managed to get George "Dubya" Bush elected by enlisting the help of his brother, Jeb Bush, in Florida to void a large number of voting slips that were deemed to be "spoiled" (i.e. they had a cross next the Democrat candidate"s name).

Don"t let the Republicans get away with the same dirty trick again, if you are a Democrat, make sure you vote!

Message to Republicans:

Mitt Romney"s got this one in the bag: he"ll walk this election; Obama is dead and buried; there"s no need for you to waste your valuable time lining up behind all the other Republican supporters to vote for him. Anyway, what difference could your one vote make?

Sheep. Nom-nom!
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:36:08 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Why the poor keep voting (Dem) against their best interest, is beyond me. I guess they wish to continue being poor.

+ infinity. Couldn't explain it better.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:10:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:36:08 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Why the poor keep voting (Dem) against their best interest, is beyond me. I guess they wish to continue being poor.

The dems promise them the treasury.
Of course so do the Republicans so there isn't much difference.
Also Obamaphones.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:26:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 1:10:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The dems promise them the treasury.
Of course so do the Republicans so there isn't much difference.
Sure there is. Republicans promise the option for self-earned success. Democrats promise success through government handing out checks. Vast difference Ma'am.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:35:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 1:26:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/26/2012 1:10:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The dems promise them the treasury.
Of course so do the Republicans so there isn't much difference.
Sure there is. Republicans promise the option for self-earned success. Democrats promise success through government handing out checks. Vast difference Ma'am.

Ahh Republicans promise that sometimes, but never follow through. The same welfare programs thrive under Republicans as they do Democrats.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:41:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 1:35:23 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ahh Republicans promise that sometimes, but never follow through. The same welfare programs thrive under Republicans as they do Democrats.
Not true, nor is it about welfare programs only. Don't even attempt to narrow anything down to that. Obama, for example, not only increased the number of people who are on government dependency, but destroyed many people's opportunities for creating their own success by leading horrid policies against small businesses. The regulations he keeps rolling out are catastrophic. If any of his policies were enough to create successful economic growth, it would not matter too much that he increased welfare. But that's not his only socialist agenda.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:46:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How are we defining "poor"? A lot of poor people tend to vote Republican, especially if they're white and live in a rural. If its a poor minority living in an urban area, then they are more likely to vote Democratic.

The democrats try their best to target poor minorities to make sure they're registered to vote on election day, know where the poll both is, and have adequate transportation (if they don't, they often will send a bus out to get them to vote). They remind them as well since most of the poor minorities tend to vote democra.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:41:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:36:08 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Why the poor keep voting (Dem) against their best interest, is beyond me. I guess they wish to continue being poor.

Because our policies are actually more helpful to them. Also, because we don't imply that poor people are lazy.

At 10/26/2012 1:26:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
Sure there is. Republicans promise the option for self-earned success. Democrats promise success through government handing out checks. Vast difference Ma'am.

Interestingly enough, economic mobility is greater in countries with redistribution policies.

At 10/26/2012 1:41:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
Not true, nor is it about welfare programs only. Don't even attempt to narrow anything down to that. Obama, for example, not only increased the number of people who are on government dependency, but destroyed many people's opportunities for creating their own success by leading horrid policies against small businesses. The regulations he keeps rolling out are catastrophic. If any of his policies were enough to create successful economic growth, it would not matter too much that he increased welfare. But that's not his only socialist agenda.

*snorts*

Speaking as an actual socialist--Obama is most certainly not a socialist, if he was he'd push through single-payer, nationalize pharmaceutical companies, et cetera. Oh, and the United States economy grew while the European countries trying austerity shrunk.[1][2]

At 10/26/2012 1:10:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The dems promise them the treasury.
Of course so do the Republicans so there isn't much difference.
Also Obamaphones.

That was started by Bush, actually.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
2. http://www.nytimes.com... And this is by Kristof, mind.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:52:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 1:41:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/26/2012 1:35:23 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ahh Republicans promise that sometimes, but never follow through. The same welfare programs thrive under Republicans as they do Democrats.
Not true, nor is it about welfare programs only. Don't even attempt to narrow anything down to that. Obama, for example, not only increased the number of people who are on government dependency, but destroyed many people's opportunities for creating their own success by leading horrid policies against small businesses. The regulations he keeps rolling out are catastrophic. If any of his policies were enough to create successful economic growth, it would not matter too much that he increased welfare. But that's not his only socialist agenda.
Wow! Now if I could only get you to be this reasonable about religion...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:57:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 4:41:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 10/26/2012 11:36:08 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Why the poor keep voting (Dem) against their best interest, is beyond me. I guess they wish to continue being poor.
Because our policies are actually more helpful to them. Also, because we don't imply that poor people are lazy.
The only thing your policies do is propagate being poor. That keep the poor indebted to you. I should know, I was poor and dare I say, a Liberal Democrat! But I grew up!

At 10/26/2012 1:26:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
Sure there is. Republicans promise the option for self-earned success. Democrats promise success through government handing out checks. Vast difference Ma'am.
Interestingly enough, economic mobility is greater in countries with redistribution policies.
Lol! The greatest upward mobility among redistributionist countries are those with the least redistribution!

Speaking as an actual socialist--Obama is most certainly not a socialist, if he was he'd push through single-payer, nationalize pharmaceutical companies, et cetera. Oh, and the United States economy grew while the European countries trying austerity shrunk.[1][2]
Spoken like a true authoritarian!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 5:34:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 4:57:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The only thing your policies do is propagate being poor. That keep the poor indebted to you. I should know, I was poor and dare I say, a Liberal Democrat! But I grew up!

1. Yeah, well, I should know more, given that I use empirical arguments rooted in economic surveys and peer-reviewed studies of different countries. Such as these which show that poverty escape rates are higher in countries with larger amounts of welfare.

- Howard Oxley and John Martin, "Controlling Government Spending and Deficits: Trends in the 1980s and Prospects for the 1990s," OECD Economic Studies 17 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 158-60. Social Security and other transfers include government outlays on public pensions, health insurance and other income maintenance.
- Greg J. Duncan of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1994.

Lol! The greatest upward mobility among redistributionist countries are those with the least redistribution!

False.[1]

Spoken like a true authoritarian!

Actually, socialism is highly democratic, because it relies on social ownership of the means of production--to then be controlled by democratic consensus rather than chance and market forces.

1. http://cep.lse.ac.uk...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 5:35:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 4:53:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Interestingly enough, economic mobility is greater in countries with redistribution policies.

+1

Of course, when the wealth range is low (i.e. high tax rates make very few people get a higher income than $ X ), "economic mobility" is bound to be high.

The improvements of living standards come from our economic system of free enterprise. With technology and capital accumulation, primarily the wealthy use this money to invest in their factories, which eventually ends up in expanded production and new technology. This technology improves productivity, and raises overall prosperity.

The wellbeing of ordinary people has been improved by this economic growth and development arising from improved productivity.

In 1919 it took about 4 1/2 hours of average labor to purchase a 3-pound chicken. Today, it only takes about 17 minutes. IPods have replaced Walkamans, and iPods are more affordable and have more features, and are of better quality. In 1900 a 3 minute long distance phone call cost $5.45, or in today's money $140. Today this call is essentially free.

For the poor, 80% of them have air conditioning, compared to only 36% for all Americans in the early 1970s. The "poor" in America are globally in the 95th percentile. The poor today are richer than all but the very top were one hundred years ago. Also, 96% of the poor in America have had enough food "at all times needed" and weren't hungry, and an equal percentage of the poor had consistent housing.

Other facts from the Treasury show that over half of taxpayers who began in a lower income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. The top 1% in 1996, only 25% remained in this group in 2005, and their median real income of this taxpayer group has actually declined through this period.

Income mobility is as prevalent as it was the years before. The median incomes of all taxpayers from 1996 to 2005 increased by 24% after inflation, and the real incomes of 2/3rds of taxpayers increased over this period.

This progress and economic development is the result of the wealthy expanding their businesses, and investing in factories, and improving innovation. A rising tide lifts all boats, and Capitalism is the system that will help the poor become better off, not gov't handouts which create dependency, a weaker economy, and less dignity.

(http://www.treasury.gov...)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 5:59:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 4:53:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Interestingly enough, economic mobility is greater in countries with redistribution policies.

+1

Not a great correlation.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 5:40:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:36:08 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Why the poor keep voting (Dem) against their best interest, is beyond me. I guess they wish to continue being poor.

It's certainly a mysterious phenomenon but it does make sense of Obama's economic policy for the last four years. Obviously, the goal was to create many more poor people to increase his chances for re-election.

If you think about it, it's brilliant, if it gets Obama re-elected we'll have four more years of spending like a drunken sailor, the economy completely collapses, we will all be poor, and the democrats will secure the White House for decades to come.

It's genius I tell you, genius.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:26:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 5:59:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/26/2012 4:53:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Interestingly enough, economic mobility is greater in countries with redistribution policies.

+1

Not a great correlation.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com...

http://www.verisi.com...

Americans males born in the bottom 20% have a 42% chance to remain there, compared to 25%, 26%, 28%, 28% and 30%, for Denmark, Sweden, Norway Finland and UK respectively

Also, American born in the born in the bottom 20% have only a 8% chance to make the top 20%, compared to 14%, 11%, 12%, 11% 12% for the same countries.

Poor have a better chance of earning more in countries with redistribution policies.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:30:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:26:04 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/26/2012 5:59:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/26/2012 4:53:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Interestingly enough, economic mobility is greater in countries with redistribution policies.

+1

Not a great correlation.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com...

http://www.verisi.com...

Americans males born in the bottom 20% have a 42% chance to remain there, compared to 25%, 26%, 28%, 28% and 30%, for Denmark, Sweden, Norway Finland and UK respectively

Also, American born in the born in the bottom 20% have only a 8% chance to make the top 20%, compared to 14%, 11%, 12%, 11% 12% for the same countries.

Poor have a better chance of earning more in countries with redistribution policies.

You only named 5 countries with relatively low gini coefficients (don't know their gini coefficients off the top of my head) and stated compared it to a nation with a high gini coefficient. Notice that my graph contains about 40 nations on it. I could cherry pick 5 nations from it and "prove" that greater inequality correlates with more economic mobility.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:34:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:30:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
You only named 5 countries with relatively low gini coefficients (don't know their gini coefficients off the top of my head) and stated compared it to a nation with a high gini coefficient. Notice that my graph contains about 40 nations on it. I could cherry pick 5 nations from it and "prove" that greater inequality correlates with more economic mobility.

DarkKermit, that graph you showed was of American states. Not countries.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:39:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:34:48 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 10/27/2012 9:30:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
You only named 5 countries with relatively low gini coefficients (don't know their gini coefficients off the top of my head) and stated compared it to a nation with a high gini coefficient. Notice that my graph contains about 40 nations on it. I could cherry pick 5 nations from it and "prove" that greater inequality correlates with more economic mobility.

DarkKermit, that graph you showed was of American states. Not countries.

you are correct, my mistake.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:52:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, checking out another graph, it would appear to be that the correlation is stronger.

http://www.economonitor.com...

They do use a different measure then the previous graph of what constitutes economic mobility.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:56:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:26:04 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Poor have a better chance of earning more in countries with redistribution policies.
I hope nobody who reads this will fall for it. First, Denmark doesn't have poor people to begin with. So even if they have the redistribution policy you're talking about, very little money would be spent on it in the first place. Second, young people who fail at anything here can get all the support they want from their families. High incomes are the key to success here.

No socialist policy sparked growth in Scandinavia. The welfare in say, Denmark, was only possible because of the Marshal Plan. And had just 10% of the population been poor, redistribution would make the country crumble.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:58:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:26:04 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Poor have a better chance of earning more in countries with redistribution policies.
Non-sequitur by the way. How about: Poor have a better chance of earning more in those countries because (a) Their parents help them move forward, and (b) It is extremely easy to start a business here? http://www.cbs.dk...
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 10:13:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:56:10 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/27/2012 9:26:04 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Poor have a better chance of earning more in countries with redistribution policies.
I hope nobody who reads this will fall for it. First, Denmark doesn't have poor people to begin with. So even if they have the redistribution policy you're talking about, very little money would be spent on it in the first place. Second, young people who fail at anything here can get all the support they want from their families. High incomes are the key to success here.

No socialist policy sparked growth in Scandinavia. The welfare in say, Denmark, was only possible because of the Marshal Plan. And had just 10% of the population been poor, redistribution would make the country crumble.

Almost everything you noted is correct except the fact that Denmark has no poor.

Homeless people tend to be impoverished, an Denmark possesses homeless individuals.

http://www.udenfor.dk...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 10:20:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 10:13:01 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Almost everything you noted is correct except the fact that Denmark has no poor.

Homeless people tend to be impoverished, an Denmark possesses homeless individuals.

http://www.udenfor.dk...
The state offers everyone a home. Many homeless people choose their lifestyles for themselves. I interviewed one for a project. He did not want a home because he was not allowed to have his dog with him, and he considers his dog his best friend. That's not being poor. That's a choice of life you made for yourself. If the state offers you an income, house, and other basic needs, and you choose not to accept the whole package, then you're not poor.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 10:33:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:56:10 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/27/2012 9:26:04 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Poor have a better chance of earning more in countries with redistribution policies.
I hope nobody who reads this will fall for it. First, Denmark doesn't have poor people to begin with.

Lol, saying that a redistribution country isn't really helping the poor because they have no poor is actually supporting redistribution.

So even if they have the redistribution policy you're talking about, very little money would be spent on it in the first place. Second, young people who fail at anything here can get all the support they want from their families. High incomes are the key to success here.

lol, I thought it was supposed to be hard work or something like that?


No socialist policy sparked growth in Scandinavia. The welfare in say, Denmark, was only possible because of the Marshal Plan. And had just 10% of the population been poor, redistribution would make the country crumble.

So a government stimulus of only $385 million in Denmark from 1948-1952 created an economic boom that has lasted 60 years and is still going strong. Heck, our total spending in all countries for that plan was $12.7 billion.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 10:44:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 10:33:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lol, saying that a redistribution country isn't really helping the poor because they have no poor is actually supporting redistribution.
Are you kidding? Saying that redistribution isn't what helps the supposedly poor has nothing to do with supporting redistribution. That is only true if we agree that redistribution removed poverty in the first place. It didn't. Learn history.

lol, I thought it was supposed to be hard work or something like that?
It's self-evident. A high income means you work. Otherwise it's not an income.

So a government stimulus of only $385 million in Denmark from 1948-1952 created an economic boom that has lasted 60 years and is still going strong. Heck, our total spending in all countries for that plan was $12.7 billion.
Compared to the current dollar-DKR course, that is 30 billion Danish Crowns. Perhaps that's not enough from a leftist point of view, but reality says otherwise. Can you tell me what the Marshall Plan helped build up in Denmark? Hmm?