Jump to content

TheCouga

Conservatives are the takers, liberals are the makers

Recommended Posts

Conservatives like to put themselves up on a false moral pedestal, saying that they can't win elections because people "dependent on government" will always vote for Democrats to give them handouts. This was, in fact, the essence of Mitt Romney's "47%" comments made famous during the 2012 campaign:

The latest burr up their *** is people on SSI or Disability Insurance. They claim that these people are moochers and will vote for Democrats to get handouts. Except that the highest concentration of people receiving these handouts are those in Red Romney states:

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | The Geography of Disability

11-28-12bud1.jpg

I wonder why all these government handouts are being funneled to conservative states? The money is primarily coming from liberal states--states that actually believe in stuff like education, so that their citizens can actually get good jobs.

It must take a train-load of cognitive dissonance tolerance to both be a moocher off the government teat and still claim that its liberals that are suckling off that teat. But, in the slang of the schoolyard, he who smelt it dealt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ain't it great. Here in Texas we are running a healthy budget surplus and we still get to stick it to Washington. Suckers!

Image111-620x348.jpg

....well, maybe we can stick around for awhile after all. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ain't it great. Here in Texas we are running a healthy budget surplus and we still get to stick it to Washington. Suckers!

Image111-620x348.jpg

....well, maybe we can stick around for awhile after all. :happy:

That's totally cool with me if you can go back in time and make GWB and his brush-clearin' costume governor of Texas again in 2000 instead of POTUS. We get to claim LBJ though.

bush-brush-31.jpg?w=437&h=282

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conservatives like to put themselves up on a false moral pedestal, saying that they can't win elections because people "dependent on government" will always vote for Democrats to give them handouts. This was, in fact, the essence of Mitt Romney's "47%" comments made famous during the 2012 campaign:

The latest burr up their *** is people on SSI or Disability Insurance. They claim that these people are moochers and will vote for Democrats to get handouts. Except that the highest concentration of people receiving these handouts are those in Red Romney states:

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | The Geography of Disability

11-28-12bud1.jpg

I wonder why all these government handouts are being funneled to conservative states? The money is primarily coming from liberal states--states that actually believe in stuff like education, so that their citizens can actually get good jobs.

It must take a train-load of cognitive dissonance tolerance to both be a moocher off the government teat and still claim that its liberals that are suckling off that teat. But, in the slang of the schoolyard, he who smelt it dealt it.

Show me a map that breaks it down by county and city so we can compare it to the voting areas in these states. Liberals are the makers all right, Rahmbo's doing a bang up job in the Windy City and Dave Bing's cleaning up the D!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me a map that breaks it down by county and city so we can compare it to the voting areas in these states. Liberals are the makers all right, Rahmbo's doing a bang up job in the Windy City and Dave Bing's cleaning up the D!

You can already figure that out for yourself. AR, MS, AL, OK, ME, KY, SC and WV all pretty much have zero large cities. So blaming this on the "urban poor" (as much as that is a favorite excuse for conservatives) is a non-starter.

I'm pretty sure rural poverty is a much greater problem in this country than urban poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as far as what Rhambo's doing...Chicago is, for the most part, a world-class city with enormous wealth, economic power, and human capital. Isolated parts of it have had crime problems for some time, but the city overall is doing just great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me a map that breaks it down by county and city so we can compare it to the voting areas in these states. Liberals are the makers all right, Rahmbo's doing a bang up job in the Windy City and Dave Bing's cleaning up the D!

Why don't you go grab your own map that breaks it down by county and city so we can compare it to the voting area in these states?

Do you want Couga to do your work for you? Sounds very taker-ish - very dependent on liberal makers to do your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Couga, but every time something like this comes up I gotta call BS. As Tater indicated, going by state is just too big of an area. There are two major problems with this thinking:

The first is that a state is uniform in how it produces or receives. This is obviously not true. Some areas of any state are going to be more prosperous, some are going to be less so. And even within those areas you will have some who are more 'makers' and some who are 'takers.'

The second is that a state is uniform in how it votes. This is also obviously not true. Some areas are going to be more democrat and others more republican. And even within those areas you will be some who buck the local area trends.

These maps just show a very large trend. It doesn't show if those people "receiving" are more liberal or conservative and it doesn't show if those people "making" are more liberal or conservative.

It's way too broad based to draw and real conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first is that a state is uniform in how it produces or receives. This is obviously not true. Some areas of any state are going to be more prosperous, some are going to be less so. And even within those areas you will have some who are more 'makers' and some who are 'takers.'

This is true. What you will find, however, is that urban/suburban areas are going to be where most of the "makers" are. In spite of Tater's insistence that a map breaking down the statistics further (which, as pfife noted, Tater has access to Google and can rebut Couga's map if he so choses), the demographics of this country are such that most of the wealth generated tend to be in urban areas. I highly doubt that the map he's demanding is going to give him the results he wants, in other words.

There are some exceptions (Midland - Odessa, here in Texas, comes to mind), but even those tend to be driven by economics susceptible to boom-bust periods (ie. oil / natural gas). A rural area is simply not going to generate the wealth of an urban area in most cases.

If you chose not to look at Couga's map politically, the map shows that many Southern states are not as urbanized as other states. I think Couga tends to be painting with a slightly broad brush here. As Greenwit pointed out, Texas lags behind in SS and SSI than the other higher states in part because of the presence of wealthy urban areas like DFW, Houston and Austin - Round Rock. In addition, you'll notice that Georgia and Florida, two of the more urbanized states in the Deep South, also lag behind in SS and SSI.

It's way too broad based to draw and real conclusions.

You have to admit it's pretty damning actually for a lot of Deep South states. It shows a deep dependence that a lot of poorer states have on the federal government, which, by the way, historically has been the case (ie. the New Deal, WPA, TVA, etc.). And many of these locations do vote small government by overwhelming numbers, complain about federal spending incessantly, when they are net beneficiaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Couga, but every time something like this comes up I gotta call BS. As Tater indicated, going by state is just too big of an area. There are two major problems with this thinking:

The first is that a state is uniform in how it produces or receives. This is obviously not true. Some areas of any state are going to be more prosperous, some are going to be less so. And even within those areas you will have some who are more 'makers' and some who are 'takers.'

The second is that a state is uniform in how it votes. This is also obviously not true. Some areas are going to be more democrat and others more republican. And even within those areas you will be some who buck the local area trends.

These maps just show a very large trend. It doesn't show if those people "receiving" are more liberal or conservative and it doesn't show if those people "making" are more liberal or conservative.

It's way too broad based to draw and real conclusions.

Sorry, RR, but the states with the highest concentration of liberals have the lowest concentration of takers. It actually is pretty clear. If liberals "took" more instead of making, the discrepancies would almost surely show up at the state level as well as the county level. The only way it is even possible for this to be skewed as you assert at the state level is if the rural-state liberals simply were extra-prone to be "takers" whereas the urban liberals were far more prone to be "makers." Which still raises the issue that states with historically Democratic governance seem to be a lot better at producing "makers" than "takers."

Furthermore, poverty in rural areas actually happens to be a bigger problem than urban poverty. The media just doesn't want to make a big deal of that. Rural areas tend to vote more Republican, as we all know. These people are more likely to be reliant on government.

Your theory that liberals are "takers" is patently wrong. I think you fail to take into account the possibility that a lot of so-called "conservatives" are just plain hypocrites and are looking for someone to look down on by calling them "takers" when they themselves are doing the taking.

Edited by TheCouga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole topic is dumb. For a number of reasons:

1. Correlation does not imply causation.

2. Nowhere in the article that Couga linked to is it implied that conservatives are by and large the ones taking disability. Instead, the author points to demographic factors.

3. Disability insurance is NOT a hot topic. Very, very few conservatives have SS disability insurance on the chopping block, so it strange to use SS disability recipients as an example of conservative "takers" going against their values.

4. We could apply the same CougaLogic and go on a rant on how stupid liberals on the coasts are for giving away all their tax dollars to conservatives in the south. That rant would be equally bone-headed.

5. Regarding Makers vs Takers, look at the 2012 exit polls. Lower income voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Those with higher incomes were more likely to favor Romney. Undoubtedly, if you stripped out gov't employees, higher income voters would tilt even heavier towards Romney. And I'm not saying lower income voters are all "takers", but it's strong evidence that welfare recipients broke heavily towards Obama.

In summary, this whole thread is a waste of time and I can't believe I got sucked into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole topic is dumb. For a number of reasons:

1. Correlation does not imply causation.

2. Nowhere in the article that Couga linked to is it implied that conservatives are by and large the ones taking disability. Instead, the author points to demographic factors.

3. Disability insurance is NOT a hot topic. Very, very few conservatives have SS disability insurance on the chopping block, so it strange to use SS disability recipients as an example of conservative "takers" going against their values.

4. We could apply the same CougaLogic and go on a rant on how stupid liberals on the coasts are for giving away all their tax dollars to conservatives in the south. That rant would be equally bone-headed.

5. Regarding Makers vs Takers, look at the 2012 exit polls. Lower income voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Those with higher incomes were more likely to favor Romney. Undoubtedly, if you stripped out gov't employees, higher income voters would tilt even heavier towards Romney. And I'm not saying lower income voters are all "takers", but it's strong evidence that welfare recipients broke heavily towards Obama.

In summary, this whole thread is a waste of time and I can't believe I got sucked into it.

Actually, the data Couga presented is interesting and I'm glad that he presented it. However, I think I'm going to stick with my view that it's mostly the fact that the states with the highest SSI receivers tend to be rural than urbanized, not that Red States tend to be monolithic teat suckers.

I do disagree with how Couga presented the information, but to say that it's without merit is false, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole topic is dumb. For a number of reasons:

1. Correlation does not imply causation.

2. Nowhere in the article that Couga linked to is it implied that conservatives are by and large the ones taking disability. Instead, the author points to demographic factors.

3. Disability insurance is NOT a hot topic. Very, very few conservatives have SS disability insurance on the chopping block, so it strange to use SS disability recipients as an example of conservative "takers" going against their values.

4. We could apply the same CougaLogic and go on a rant on how stupid liberals on the coasts are for giving away all their tax dollars to conservatives in the south. That rant would be equally bone-headed.

5. Regarding Makers vs Takers, look at the 2012 exit polls. Lower income voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Those with higher incomes were more likely to favor Romney. Undoubtedly, if you stripped out gov't employees, higher income voters would tilt even heavier towards Romney. And I'm not saying lower income voters are all "takers", but it's strong evidence that welfare recipients broke heavily towards Obama.

In summary, this whole thread is a waste of time and I can't believe I got sucked into it.

1. No one's even debating "causation" here, so this platitude is irrelevant.

2. Demographic areas with more "conservatives" have more takers than demographic areas with more liberals. That is pretty clear, even if the author doesn't mention it.

3. Yes, it is a hot topic.

4. I actually think liberals on the coasts probably don't think its stupid that their money is going to help people who have disabilities. It is part of their internal value system to support activity such as this, even if the people who benefit are conservatives from Kentucky.

5. If you look at exit polls, people with graduate degrees actually voted for Obama over Romney, which is typical. These people are disproportionately involved in the "making" and production aspect of our economy, even though they might not get as much income as business owners. So it's not necessarily true that those who make more money actually produce more. But they do "own" more so they make more income. Furthermore, people of income with $100K or more only leaned toward Romney by 9%. That's not a very high percentage. There's a lot of liberals in that "maker" class if you define it by income. And no, there are very few government jobs that pay that much or more, so if you take "government employees" out of that equation, the numbers will not change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is conservative baiting. I thought Couga was better than this. Disappointing.

No, it's not. It's calling "conservatives" out on their #1 BS line. This notion that they produce and everyone else takes from them is total fantasy. And it's really irritating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absolutely without merit. He implies that because 10% of people in Alabama receive disability, there is some sort of cognitive dissonance with conservatives in that state. Is that supposed to make any sense? Uh no. It's a complete logic FAIL. For all we know those 10% could be 70% democrat.

A lot of retirees that receive social security payments and medicare also vote Republican. Scratching your head over these facts is akin to conservatives who complain about how if liberals who happily accept tax cuts even when they claim tax rates are too low. People are going use our system to their benefit regardless of their political persuasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually not an unusual trend. If you take into account all tax dollars over the last 20 years, you will see that the same pattern generally holds up:

How the

kp1.jpg

There's a few blue states in the "taker" column such as New Mexico and Maine, but in general, most of the "taker" states are the "who's who" in strident Republican support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of retirees that receive social security payments and medicare also vote Republican. Scratching your head over these facts is akin to conservatives who complain about how if liberals who happily accept tax cuts even when they claim tax rates are too low. People are going use our system to their benefit regardless of their political persuasion.

Good, because that chart isn't measuring people who take regular Social Security or Medicare. So you can leave that out of your equation.

Even if what you say is true, it seems like blue states are far better at turning their higher concentration of liberals into "makers," whereas states governed by Republicans are far better at creating "takers." Which is similarly inconvenient for your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP Rep Says He Opposes Immigration Reform Because Latinos Are Uneducated, Will Never Support Republicans | ThinkProgress

Boy, it's hard to win elections when your party leaders are saying stupid stuff like this:

“It’s amnesty that America can’t afford,” Barletta said Monday. “We have to stop people from coming in illegally. This will be a green light for anyone who wants to come to America illegally and then be granted citizenship one day.” [...]

“I hope politics is not at the root of why we’re rushing to pass a bill. Anyone who believes that they’re going to win over the Latino vote is grossly mistaken,” Barletta said. “The majority that are here illegally are low-skilled or may not even have a high school diploma. The Republican Party is not going to compete over who can give more social programs out. They will become Democrats because of the social programs they’ll depend on.”

With losers like this speaking for the party, there's not going to be much of a contest in future elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's absolutely without merit.

Just because you don't like the information the data produces doesn't mean its without merit. I think the data is with merit. That doesn't mean that I read it the way Couga reads it, in fact I think it's a far more partisan read than it should be. But that doesn't mean the data is worthless and a waste of time... it actually provides good insight into the difference between urbanization and rural flight, and who draws off of SSI and Disability.

Then again, I love analyzing demographics, so maybe that's why I don't think it's worthless.

Edited by mtutiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could say red states get a better deal from the government which is inconvenient for democrats. It also appears that rural states get more than their far share from the gov't. There are a number of reasons for that.

Romney won every income bracket over $50k. The lowest income bracket went to Obama by a huge margin. You can come to whatever conclusions you'd like by looking at state maps, but those two facts tell me that when you look at the individual level "takers" are more likely to vote for the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney won every income bracket over $50k. The lowest income bracket went to Obama by a huge margin. You can come to whatever conclusions you'd like by looking at state maps, but those two facts tell me that when you look at the individual level "takers" are more likely to vote for the Democrats.

Romney won high-income voters by 9%. That's not very high. 44% of these people voted for Democrats. Isn't it just possible that the reason people vote for Democrats is because their system of morals and values tell them that it is right to not just look out only for yourself? I doubt many of these high income liberals are actually takers.

Republican economics assumes that everybody is just going to be selfish, but that's not the case. Polls were posted earlier showing that 60% of rich people approved of their taxes being raised to pay off the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you could say red states get a better deal from the government which is inconvenient for democrats. It also appears that rural states get more than their far share from the gov't. There are a number of reasons for that.

Absolutely you could say that. But since you are drawing that conclusion, it appears that your theory of the data being "without merit" is false, since you seem to be just fine drawing a conclusion from it.

I really don't care about whether or not the data gets analyzed in a partisan sense. I still find it more intriguing because the data really doesn't bear anything out politically, I'll leave that to you and Couga to battle about. However, it bears out that states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, etc. are not urbanized states and have a highly aging population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...