Bush's budget axe to fall on poor

[CaptnKirk]

Here's a clip from your data:

VOTE BY INCOME

$15-30,000 (15%) 42% Bush - 57% Kerry

$150-200,000 (4%) 58% Bush - 42% Kerry

$200,000 or More (3%) 63% Bush - 35% Kerry - 1% Nader

I would bet (and population ststistics prove this to be a fact) that the actual body count of those whos
income exceed $ 150K in wages are outnumbered by those who make less than $ 50K by more than 100 to 1.

In a country of 300 million residents nearly 180 million are in the work force.
Of that 180 million, just over 1 million are making more than $ 150K.
so that 58% pro bush is somewhere near 600,000 individuals.

The approximately 50% that voted for bush who earned less than $ 30K would be over 90 million in body count.
If you don't make over $ 50K a year and voter for Dubya - you got scamed, it's a bait & switch,
he don't need you any more - you're being kicked to the curb.

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Here's a clip from your data:

VOTE BY INCOME

$15-30,000 (15%) 42% Bush - 57% Kerry

$150-200,000 (4%) 58% Bush - 42% Kerry

$200,000 or More (3%) 63% Bush - 35% Kerry - 1% Nader

I would bet (and population ststistics prove this to be a fact) that the actual body count of those whos
income exceed $ 150K in wages are outnumbered by those who make less than $ 50K by more than 100 to 1.

In a country of 300 million residents nearly 180 million are in the work force.
Of that 180 million, just over 1 million are making more than $ 150K.
so that 58% pro bush is somewhere near 600,000 individuals.

The approximately 50% that voted for bush who earned less than $ 30K would be over 90 million in body count.
If you don't make over $ 50K a year and voter for Dubya - you got scamed, it's a bait & switch,
he don't need you any more - you're being kicked to the curb.

Not necessarily. Those people voted on other issues such as ethical values or foreign policy.

Nobody is being "kicked to the curb" here, who probably doesn't deserve it already. Mostly Democratic voting inner city welfare sucking scum I would imagine. :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Here's a clip from your data:

VOTE BY INCOME

$15-30,000 (15%) 42% Bush - 57% Kerry

$150-200,000 (4%) 58% Bush - 42% Kerry

$200,000 or More (3%) 63% Bush - 35% Kerry - 1% Nader

I would bet (and population ststistics prove this to be a fact) that the actual body count of those whos
income exceed $ 150K in wages are outnumbered by those who make less than $ 50K by more than 100 to 1.

In a country of 300 million residents nearly 180 million are in the work force.
Of that 180 million, just over 1 million are making more than $ 150K.
so that 58% pro bush is somewhere near 600,000 individuals.

The approximately 50% that voted for bush who earned less than $ 30K would be over 90 million in body count.
If you don't make over $ 50K a year and voter for Dubya - you got scamed, it's a bait & switch,
he don't need you any more - you're being kicked to the curb AND Loving It.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Not necessarily. Those people voted on other issues such as ethical values or foreign policy.

Nobody is being "kicked to the curb" here, who probably doesn't deserve it already. Mostly Democratic voting inner city welfare sucking scum I would imagine. :laugh:

HAHAHAHA
you are so ignorant...wow!
i believe urban populations have a lower unemployment...looking into it. But damn man. Finish posting your facts and data. You assume and pull stuff out of your a$$ like there is no tomorrow...sheesh

 

[MisterCornell]

i believe urban populations have a lower unemployment.

Yeah, all the unemployed people obviously live out in the suburbs. That's pretty typical. :roll:

 

[Stunt]

OK, i can't find national numbers, but i've read the alabama and pennsylvania numbers and the rural areas indeed have a higher unemployment in these states, by a percent or more.
PA said quote "Rural unemployment rates is significantly higher than Urban rates"

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: Stunt
OK, i can't find national numbers, but i've read the alabama and pennsylvania numbers and the rural areas indeed have a higher unemployment in these states, by a percent or more.
PA said quote "Rural unemployment rates is significantly higher than Urban rates"

It's called "the suburbs". If your statistics lump suburban employment with urban employment, they are useless. The main divide in American politics is between the Democratic voting cities and the heavily Republican suburban areas. The rural areas are also Republican, but are sparsely populated and have less impact on politics.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

i believe urban populations have a lower unemployment.

Yeah, all the unemployed people obviously live out in the suburbs. That's pretty typical. :roll:

You expect the people who work in a dense city to all live downtown?...gimme a break.
Fact is, there is more unemployment in rural areas.
Rural areas predominantly voted Rep.
To say that inner city dems are sucking welfare with no facts is extremely ignorant.

Anyone with a brain should know to back up assumptions.
Otherwise you are shooting your mouth off like an a$$

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

Originally posted by: Stunt
OK, i can't find national numbers, but i've read the alabama and pennsylvania numbers and the rural areas indeed have a higher unemployment in these states, by a percent or more.
PA said quote "Rural unemployment rates is significantly higher than Urban rates"

It's called "the suburbs". If your statistics lump suburban employment with urban employment, they are useless. The main divide in American politics is between the Democratic voting cities and the heavily Republican suburban areas. The rural areas are also Republican, but are sparsely populated and have less impact on politics.

Thats where the electoral vote comes in

 

[MisterCornell]

Fact is, there is more unemployment in rural areas.
Rural areas predominantly voted Rep.

Are IQ's lower in Canada?

You have not shown that rural unemployment levels are higher than urban (not including suburban) unemployment level.

If it was, that does not mean that rural folks account for the majority of the unemployed, because there are more people in urban areas than rural areas.

Even then, Kerry still had 30%+ support in the rural areas, and it could very well be that he attracted the votes of those who were unemployed, as was probably the case.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

i believe urban populations have a lower unemployment.

Yeah, all the unemployed people obviously live out in the suburbs. That's pretty typical. :roll:

You expect the people who work in a dense city to all live downtown?...gimme a break.
Fact is, there is more unemployment in rural areas.
Rural areas predominantly voted Rep.
To say that inner city dems are sucking welfare with no facts is extremely ignorant.

Anyone with a brain should know to back up assumptions.
Otherwise you are shooting your mouth off like an a$$

Assumptions based on stereotypes and racial bias will do that to you every time.

This is precisely how the money boys keep the eyes of their defenders off the ball.

The practice, recently perfected by the Republican Party, was alluded to by CaptnKirk earlier in this very thread.

Then slowly over a span of time the Republican party used the fear of racial diversity
as a tool to drive a wedge between those who needed assistance of any sort, and used
their bigotry and convinced them that the 'minorities' were taking all their hard earned
money to support 'Welfare Queens' (Ray-Gun Era) and they were taking their jobs away
because them 'Norities' wold work cheaper cause they're a lower class (Rush-a-Roni)
Mix in all them there 'queers eyen' their boys (Musta been Preists in them there hills),
And the Feminazi Lezzies chasin their women and farm animals - somehow they forgot
what what in the hell got them modernization, and let a mind-rinsing (less effort than a brainwashing)
erode thier knowledge into a compelsion to do what Conservative Right wanted them to do.
It was well organized, and they never saw the truck coming to run them over.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

Fact is, there is more unemployment in rural areas.
Rural areas predominantly voted Rep.

Are IQ's lower in Canada?

You have not shown that rural unemployment levels are higher than urban (not including suburban) unemployment level.

If it was, that does not mean that rural folks account for the majority of the unemployed, because there are more people in urban areas than rural areas.

Even then, Kerry still had 30%+ support in the rural areas, and it could very well be that he attracted the votes of those who were unemployed, as was probably the case.

I'm starting to question your IQ as you are making assumptions with no facts.
You have yet to give me hard evidence that the unemployed vote democrat.

In general from your link, Democrats are more educated.
That's something i can say for sure.

Until you give supporting eveidence that people on welfare vote democrat, you are just spouting off useless jibberish.

No supporting evidence and assumptions isn't goign to get you far in making your point.

 

[conehead433]

Bush probably thinks all the poor are inferior, a burden to society, breed like rats, etc., and should be lined up and shot or maybe gassed, or any other means to simply be rid of them. Heil Bush!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Bush probably thinks all the poor are inferior, a burden to society, breed like rats, etc., and should be lined up and shot or maybe gassed, or any other means to simply be rid of them. Heil Bush!

no, but that is how the looney left like to portray him.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Bush probably thinks all the poor are inferior, a burden to society, breed like rats, etc., and should be lined up and shot or maybe gassed, or any other means to simply be rid of them. Heil Bush!

I don't think that bush feels the poor are inferior, he seems to have a good relationship with grassroots voters when doing rallies.
A lot of his support comes from the poor, and he knows it.
To win elections you have to appeal to all people.

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conehead433
Bush probably thinks all the poor are inferior, a burden to society, breed like rats, etc., and should be lined up and shot or maybe gassed, or any other means to simply be rid of them. Heil Bush!

I don't think that bush feels the poor are inferior, he seems to have a good relationship with grassroots voters when doing rallies.
A lot of his support comes from the poor, and he knows it.
To win elections you have to appeal to all people.

There you go making assumptions again :roll:

Where did you get grassroots = poor from?

Much of the grass roots out there (for Republicans and Democrats) are upper middle class youth with free time to contribute to electoral campaigns.

 

[Stunt]

how about the workers for the campaigns.
and grassroots is the majority of the electorate, who are definately not the rich upperclass

 

[Steeplerot]

yeah all the "welfare sucking scum" are in the high rent cities of america.. we sure are living large with that phat check nowdays compared to the throw away low rents in the 'burbs. *plonk*

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
yeah all the "welfare sucking scum" are in the high rent cities of america.. we sure are living large with that phat check nowdays compared to the throw away low rents in the 'burbs. *plonk*

i live in NYC and the only people that seem to want to rent are the ones that just have to live in manhattan or some other "trendy" and crazy expensive neighborhood. i own an apartment in queens and have been very happy with the $40,000 in equity i gained in the last 18 months.

i laugh every time i'm in the city and see an anti-bush sign hanging from a window of someone that probably pays $2500 a month rent for a studio.

 

[Stunt]

What does their political views have to do with renting?

 

[irwincur]

I would guess that a great amount of money recieved in the Red states is probably related to agriculture. Not to mention, there are still many poor people in the South. However, it looks like these people put their cultural values before financial gain at the hand of handouts. If indeed they do get more, yet actively vote for less, it is a good sign. After all, the big scare is that when enough people are collecting they will tend to vote themselves raises.

Now, the reverse is true for the Blue states. I would guess that more of the Blue state handouts are Welfare related, or at least urban related. These people tend to vote for Democrats, as they are thinking of their own personal gain at the voting booth. It is easy when every Taxocrat out there promises the world to the poor - only to laugh when they get elected, and keep them poor, and wanting. The point is, they are actiely trying to vote themselves raises.



That my friends is the difference between the Red and Blue states. They are for the most part equally poor, yet they choose two entirely different parties based on culture and desire. One seems more eithical and willing to lose money to retain their beliefs, the others willing to sell their souls just for a larger check.

 

[Steeplerot]

andthat in a nutshell is the biggest load of horsecrap I have heard all day...
ethics and republicans in the same sentence is laughable at best.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: MisterCornhole

Originally posted by: Stunt
OK, i can't find national numbers, but i've read the alabama and pennsylvania numbers and the rural areas indeed have a higher unemployment in these states, by a percent or more.
PA said quote "Rural unemployment rates is significantly higher than Urban rates"

It's called "the suburbs". If your statistics lump suburban employment with urban employment, they are useless. The main divide in American politics is between the Democratic voting cities and the heavily Republican suburban areas. The rural areas are also Republican, but are sparsely populated and have less impact on politics.

Again you show you complete lack of knowledge when it come to facts.

The 'Cities' or industrial core of states in this country have 'Suburbs'.

Suburbs are the bedroom communities that the people who work, usually in those 'Cities' have chosen to live in -
only so they do not have to live in the high population of the inner core city. They sure as hell are not 'RURAL'.

The 'Rural' sector is the outlaying, and vast area with sprawling open farm land and ranches where the popularion density is very low,
with occasional smalll townships that serve the farming community with various sundry items like stores, service stations,
the 'whistle stops' of America where there is less population in a hundred square mile region (that's 10 X 10 by the way)
and the population of that region does not even total what a 4 square mile area (2 X 2) of a city has.
Densities like 2,000 people per square mile.

Try these links:

Urban
Suburban
Rural

For example the Population of the State of Montana is mostly Rural - Approximately 917,600 for the whole state.
and the Population of the city of St. Louis is Urban with 348,000 in the inner city, and St. Louis is Surrounded by Suburbs and then again that area of 'County Suburbs' has it's own satellite comunity of sub-set suburbs. The 'Metropolitan Area'
of Saint Louis, the Urban and Suburburbs, & subset Suburban area has a population of 2,600,000 - that more than 2 and a half million, almost 3 time what the entire state of Montana has, in their 'Burbs' alone, and St. Louis is only the 18th largest Metro community.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: randym431
Some people like Moore and Franken, and many others, kept asking during the election, "why are the majority of Bush supports voting AGAINST their own best interest?". This question fell on deaf ears, apparently, but those "RED" State's "poor folk" are soon to get a harsh reality check from their leader, GW. Enjoy that cat food peoples!

Who didn't know that this thread was coming?

I'll be blunt here: FvCK the poor. I'm sick to death of people trying to justify why it's OK for some people to STEAL from others. "Well they can afford it!" you cry. I don't give a damn if the rich CAN afford it: The fact is, YOU didn't earn it, YOU don't have a right to it. And if you have to starve and die because you are too inept to make your own damn living, I DON'T CARE.

Jason

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: randym431
Some people like Moore and Franken, and many others, kept asking during the election, "why are the majority of Bush supports voting AGAINST their own best interest?". This question fell on deaf ears, apparently, but those "RED" State's "poor folk" are soon to get a harsh reality check from their leader, GW. Enjoy that cat food peoples!

Who didn't know that this thread was coming?

I'll be blunt here: FvCK the poor. I'm sick to death of people trying to justify why it's OK for some people to STEAL from others. "Well they can afford it!" you cry. I don't give a damn if the rich CAN afford it: The fact is, YOU didn't earn it, YOU don't have a right to it. And if you have to starve and die because you are too inept to make your own damn living, I DON'T CARE.

Jason

Don't you just love those 'Compassionate Consevatives' ?