1 in 8 "Americans" recieve food stamps. Outrageous!

[CADsortaGUY]

ANy progress on that yet?

Nope, haven't had a chance to get to the store yet to get normal prices. Been too busy with work that needs to get done before next week.

 

[Zebo]

I never said that the neocons (because, let's face it, they're the only ones who would behave in the manner you describe) were any better. The difference, though, is that they generally don't condescend anyone for not wanting to give money to those who would rather not work for their own.

The liberals are not only ungrateful, but are also condescending to people who would rather keep the money they earned for themselves...while at the same time refusing to give any of their own. That's hypocrisy.

I think it's funny people think, self made people, even African American self made people, think they made it all themselves. Bottom line without education, legal, infrastructure, courts, police, pacified poor, banking system, SBA loans, federal reserve , etc, etc...all things which cost tax money they would have nothing. It's a balancing act to be sure but take away all government functions which cost tax money and you get places like Chad, Bolivia and Somalia. Have total socialism you get North Korea and former USSR. Where eventually they have to implement slavery to make people work.

I consider myself conservative but there are some basics the richest country in the world ought to provide. Education, HC, shelter and food - all needed to live. Shouldn't be easy but there nevertheless.

 

[Zebo]

Here's what I take away when I talk to a well-off Conservative.



Call it smugness, elitism, snobbery, whatever... that's what it is.

A lot of these people are full of themselves, parading their achievements as if it gave them some sort of moral authority to lord over the poor. They talk about how great they are. Emphasis all on themselves, an none for the society at large that enabled them to succeed.

Narcissism and greed at its worst.

You have a wild imagination. Turn off Wall Street and go meet some rich republicans.

 

[Modelworks]

I think it's funny people think, self made people, even African American self made people, think they made it all themselves..

It is funny. If you look at anyone who is 'successful' there is always something that happened along the way that involved someone else giving them a break or chance or help of some kind.

 

[Zebo]

It is funny. If you look at anyone who is 'successful' there is always something that happened along the way that involved someone else giving them a break or chance or help of some kind.

I don't know about that. Did Tiger Woods get a break or just work his ass off to be best golfer in the world? I meant more along the lines of what lets him even earn his millions is a government protection or copyright and trademarks which allows NIKE to profit and pay him 50 million a year. That costs tax payers money police,courts etc. Also - what's to stop a hoot rat from just taking everything Tiger owns. Police= which costs tax payers money.

PS substitute Tiger for any self made rich person - not everyone has it given to them but works their ass off to get there. Shouldn't mean they don't pay a progressive income tax rate though since they can now afford to and still live large.

 

[werepossum]

Technically, no one needs anything but rice and fish. Anything else is luxury.

Milk is a great source of vitamins, protein and calcium. And if you can handle the lactose, carbohydrates. And really, milk is not that expensive. To not allow food stamps to buy milk is just plain wrong.

Dude, no one was advocating that food stamps be prohibited from buying milk, or even that children be prohibited from drinking milk. They were just saying that my assertion that kids NEED milk was wrong - in other words, that kids should drink milk like adults drink it (per taste and desire) rather than necessarily being fed milk at every meal because it's essential to growth. I too think that milk is a great food, especially for kids, but Blackangst1 and piasabird are correct that kids (past the first few years anyway) don't actually need milk per se, they just need the nutrients, from whatever source. Lactose-intolerant and milk protein-intolerant children for example don't fail to prosper in a modern society unless their parents are unaware of the problem and its alternatives.

 

[nonameo]

I don't know about that. Did Tiger Woods get a break or just work his ass off to be best golfer in the world? I meant more along the lines of what lets him even earn his millions is a government protection or copyright and trademarks which allows NIKE to profit and pay him 50 million a year. That costs tax payers money police,courts etc. Also - what's to stop a hoot rat from just taking everything Tiger owns. Police= which costs tax payers money.

PS substitute Tiger for any self made rich person - not everyone has it given to them but works their ass off to get there. Shouldn't mean they don't pay a progressive income tax rate though since they can now afford to and still live large.

I hate to play devils advocate, but it would probably be cheaper for any given rich person to just forgo the taxes and hire his/her own mercenaries. They also then get to follow their own rules. OTOH, they'd have to fight off the mercenaries of other rich people.

In any case, the little guy would be fucked.

 

[Zebo]

I hate to play devils advocate, but it would probably be cheaper for any given rich person to just forgo the taxes and hire his/her own mercenaries. They also then get to follow their own rules. OTOH, they'd have to fight off the mercenaries of other rich people.

In any case, the little guy would be fucked.

Been tried. Makes everyone poor or dead including them. Every society needs lots of middle class to make a Tiger Woods or Micheal Dell.

 

[blackangst1]

You have a wild imagination. Turn off Wall Street and go meet some rich republicans.

Sorry, but your Republican comment is bullshit. The Democrats are just as rich. In fact, last two major elections showed the Dems ARE the party of the rich now. Wake up.

 

[blackangst1]

Been tried. Makes everyone poor or dead including them. Every society needs lots of middle class to make a Tiger Woods or Micheal Dell.

No, youre wrong. It takes (in your example) the middle class to sustain them, not make them. They came from nothing. Big difference.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't know about that. Did Tiger Woods get a break or just work his ass off to be best golfer in the world? I meant more along the lines of what lets him even earn his millions is a government protection or copyright and trademarks which allows NIKE to profit and pay him 50 million a year. That costs tax payers money police,courts etc. Also - what's to stop a hoot rat from just taking everything Tiger owns. Police= which costs tax payers money.

PS substitute Tiger for any self made rich person - not everyone has it given to them but works their ass off to get there. Shouldn't mean they don't pay a progressive income tax rate though since they can now afford to and still live large.

He worked his ass off. In sports (generally speaking) there are no breaks. You're either are top or youre not.

 

[dmcowen674]

Sorry, but your Republican comment is bullshit. The Democrats are just as rich. In fact, last two major elections showed the Dems ARE the party of the rich now. Wake up.

What a load of horseshit.

You can't possibly believe the crap coming out of your mouth.

 

[blackangst1]

What a load of horseshit.

You can't possibly believe the crap coming out of your mouth.

Sorry. Numbers dont lie.

 

[dmcowen674]

Sorry. Numbers dont lie.

You're right, that's why us poor working stiffs had to bail out the fucking lazy rich on Wall Street.

Go find another country lazy bastards.

 

[blackangst1]

You're right, that's why us poor working stiffs had to bail out the fucking lazy rich on Wall Street.

Go find another country lazy bastards.

Nice change of subject. As usual.

 

[Patranus]

You're right, that's why us poor working stiffs had to bail out the fucking lazy rich on Wall Street.

Go find another country lazy bastards.

Na, I am pretty sure that is for the 47% of eligible Americans who pay zero income tax or get a tax credit.

If you are paying taxes, you are getting screwed by 47% of your fellow citizens while you are trying to live your life.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Na, I am pretty sure that is for the 47% of eligible Americans who pay zero income tax or get a tax credit.

If you are paying taxes, you are getting screwed by 47% of your fellow citizens while you are trying to live your life.

That's one (wrong) way to look at it.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry. Numbers dont lie.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/exit-polls-by-issue-income-age-race-gender/

You're right they don't. If you look at the numbers there you will see that while Obama won every income group, he won those groups at and above the median income by percentages smaller than his overall vote, and won the votes of the poor by a wide margin. (there is a 1% point difference at the highest level) From this it is reasonable to conclude that greater income is positively correlated with voting Republican, not Democrat.

If you want to say that the Democrats are the party of the rich because Obama won those demographics that's fine, but all that really means is that the Democrats have been the party of everyone the last few years because they've won in every demographic.

 

[nonameo]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/exit-polls-by-issue-income-age-race-gender/

You're right they don't. If you look at the numbers there you will see that while Obama won every income group, he won those groups at and above the median income by percentages smaller than his overall vote, and won the votes of the poor by a wide margin. (there is a 1% point difference at the highest level) From this it is reasonable to conclude that greater income is positively correlated with voting Republican, not Democrat.

If you want to say that the Democrats are the party of the rich because Obama won those demographics that's fine, but all that really means is that the Democrats have been the party of everyone the last few years because they've won in every demographic.

I would like to see figures on money, and I think with that we will see that both parties are parties of the rich.

 

[fskimospy]

I would like to see figures on money, and I think with that we will see that both parties are parties of the rich.

What money do you mean exactly? Do you mean people with large amassed fortunes, or were you referring to political contributions?

 

[nonameo]

What money do you mean exactly? Do you mean people with large amassed fortunes, or were you referring to political contributions?

political contributions

 

[blackangst1]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/exit-polls-by-issue-income-age-race-gender/

You're right they don't. If you look at the numbers there you will see that while Obama won every income group, he won those groups at and above the median income by percentages smaller than his overall vote, and won the votes of the poor by a wide margin. (there is a 1% point difference at the highest level) From this it is reasonable to conclude that greater income is positively correlated with voting Republican, not Democrat.

If you want to say that the Democrats are the party of the rich because Obama won those demographics that's fine, but all that really means is that the Democrats have been the party of everyone the last few years because they've won in every demographic.

Dont forget to also look at contributions, personal wealth in the senate/house, and who represents the wealthiest districts in the country. (hint: they have a D next to their name). In every aspect the Democrats are the party of the rich. They represent them and they are themselves. 6/10 of the wealthiest congressmen/women are Democrat.

Here's an interesting article from Oct this year about this very subject: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm

Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most of the nation's wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent districts.

The Democratic-controlled House is now an unusual combination of the richest and poorest districts, the best and least educated, and the best and the worst insured. The analysis found that Democrats have attracted educated, affluent whites who had tended previously to vote Republican.

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.



Sorry, but your cries about the GOP catering to the rich are now lies.

 

[Darwin333]

You're right, that's why us poor working stiffs had to bail out the fucking lazy rich on Wall Street.

Go find another country lazy bastards.

I bet it really pissed you off that your heros, the Democrats, made those rich bastards much much richer. Matter of fact, to this day the Dems are still shoveling money to big banks and Wall St.

Your heros are no different then those you despise. How does that make you feel?

 

[fskimospy]

Dont forget to also look at contributions, personal wealth in the senate/house, and who represents the wealthiest districts in the country. (hint: they have a D next to their name). In every aspect the Democrats are the party of the rich. They represent them and they are themselves. 6/10 of the wealthiest congressmen/women are Democrat.

Here's an interesting article from Oct this year about this very subject: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm

Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most of the nation's wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent districts.

The Democratic-controlled House is now an unusual combination of the richest and poorest districts, the best and least educated, and the best and the worst insured. The analysis found that Democrats have attracted educated, affluent whites who had tended previously to vote Republican.

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.



Sorry, but your cries about the GOP catering to the rich are now lies.

That's silliness. You're drawing the exact opposite conclusion that you should given the data.

Democrats control 59% of the total seats in the House but only represent 57% of the wealthiest quintile. That's a negative correlation between wealth and Democratic representation, not a positive one.

As for contributions, where are you getting your data? There are always more contributions to the party in power for obvious reasons (as they can actually implement your agenda), but if fundraising for the last election is any indication Obama's donor base was far more centered on the poor and middle class than McCain's was. To somehow claim that Obama was the candidate for the rich would be making the same mistake you made in your earlier post, that the Democrats beating the Republicans everywhere was somehow evidence for them being centered on the rich.

Finally personal income of a representative is an absurd way to measure who they represent. (not to mention that you have a difference of exactly one congressman in a sample size of 10, a big no-no) I don't have the time or the inclination to calculate the average net worth of a member of congress and apply it to party label, but regardless you're going to have to show a link between wealth and legislative voting record for this to even be worth looking into further.

 

[blackangst1]

That's silliness. You're drawing the exact opposite conclusion that you should given the data.

Democrats control 59% of the total seats in the House but only represent 57% of the wealthiest quintile. That's a negative correlation between wealth and Democratic representation, not a positive one.

As for contributions, where are you getting your data? There are always more contributions to the party in power for obvious reasons (as they can actually implement your agenda), but if fundraising for the last election is any indication Obama's donor base was far more centered on the poor and middle class than McCain's was. To somehow claim that Obama was the candidate for the rich would be making the same mistake you made in your earlier post, that the Democrats beating the Republicans everywhere was somehow evidence for them being centered on the rich.

Its common knowledge. Lets look at the POTUS campaign as an example.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?Ind=K02

Total to these candidates: $2,622,356 (Dems 55.2% and Repubs 44.8%)

Lobbyists

Hillary Clinton (D)
$764,142

John McCain (R)
$422,376

Barack Obama (D)
$87,108


Pharmaceutical/Healthcare
Hillary Clinton (D)
$143,668

Barack Obama (D)
$83,806

John McCain (R)
$42,415

Finally personal income of a representative is an absurd way to measure who they represent. (not to mention that you have a difference of exactly one congressman in a sample size of 10, a big no-no) I don't have the time or the inclination to calculate the average net worth of a member of congress and apply it to party label, but regardless you're going to have to show a link between wealth and legislative voting record for this to even be worth looking into further.

I never coorilated the two. As far as who is the wealthiest, I spent about 2 hours and posted it in another thread answering the same question a month or so ago, but it turned out 6/10 of the wealthiest congresspeople are D's, and 13/20 as well.

The bottom line is, it is the D's who most largely represent, and are, rich. Because they are majority now? Perhaps. But the reason is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is the D's are the party of the rich now.

Ive now posted several sources and justification for my reasoning, to which you reply "siliness". Perhaps now its your turn to post sources that show Im wrong.

edit: I found a quick link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php

My bad. It lists D's as 8/10, and 15/25 top richest. This data is newer than when I looked last.

Rank Industry Minimum Value Maximum Value
1Darrell Issa (R-Calif)$164,650,039$251,025,020$337,400,0022Jane Harman (D-Calif)$112,318,335$244,796,667$377,275,0003Herb Kohl (D-Wis)$163,510,027$214,570,011$265,629,9964Mark Warner (D-Va)$73,315,204$209,700,598$346,085,9925John Kerry (D-Mass)$158,643,501$208,801,275$258,959,0496Jared Polis (D-Colo)$50,737,134$158,173,566$265,609,9987Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla)$-68,340,597$142,432,692$353,205,9828Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)$60,196,019$94,306,010$128,416,0029Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ)$47,632,169$74,744,094$101,856,02010Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)$42,912,257$72,380,637$101,849,018


How about cash earned for elections?

Total RaisedTotal SpentCash on HandDebts

Democratic Party$324,925,907$185,642,104$49,461,553$10,967,869Republican Party$190,221,515$188,306,326$32,688,969$5,172,558Democratic National Cmte$73,371,021$65,985,732$12,955,285$4,363,778Republican National Cmte$77,900,634$81,767,253$11,292,167$0Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte$48,167,948$34,142,312$14,517,488$3,335,710National Republican Congressional Cmte$30,636,810$27,326,236$4,168,422$2,000,000Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte$37,112,302$26,088,207$11,320,690$2,082,916National Republican Senatorial Cmte$33,811,898$28,688,205$5,872,271$0