What are the odds any welfare recipient will vote republican?

[Little-Acorn]

It's a lie that government gifts are a liberal thing.

Deductions and exemptions and credits are very much a Republican thing, too.

Welfare is about the most bipartisan thing there is. We are ALL slaves, and it is both idiotic and hypocritical to try to paint it as a "liberal" thing.

Here we see the usual confusion of someone who thinks Republicans are conservative.

Why do you think I usually put "in both parties" when I refer to liberals... as I did in the post you quoted?

"Government gifts" (more accurately called "Robbing Peter to pay Paul") is exclusively a liberal thing, regardless of which party they are in. Conservatives know that government has no business doing such a thing, and rightly regard it as theft, followed by distribution of stolen goods.

The Declaration of Independence points out that government are created to protect our fundamental rights... and for no other purpose.

And it also mentions that when a government starts abusing those rights instead of protecting them, we have a duty to alter that government to make it stop. And, if it won't alter, to overthrow it.

The DOI was referring to the British government of the 1700s when it said that. But the people who wrote it and enacted it, knew that the British government wasn't the only one that could abuse people's rights.

And stealing and distributing the stolen goods (that is, taxing to give the money to people you have no authority to give it to), is one of the most fundamental abuses. A major reason we create governments, is to keep people from stealing our stuff. When government itself starts stealing from us, then what do we do?

The DOI answers that question in no uncertain terms.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Amount spent on employer sponsored health insurance exemption each year: $659 billion.

And here we see more confusion. When government decides not to tax something, that's not "additional spending". It's actually a small piece of "good government". The fact that the government then taxes lots of other things makes people complain that the taxation is not "even" (which they mistake for "fair"). But then they conclude that more taxation is needed, not less.

You've been listening to liberals too much.

 

[bendog]

Amount spent on Lifeline program ("Obamaphones") each year: $2.2 billion.

Amount spent on mortgage interest deduction each year: $484 billion.

The Lifeline program is not even a drop in the bucket in comparison.

How does anyone spend on a deduction?

It's bs to try and deny govt largesse is not involved when the tax code is used to make something like a new corporate jet cheaper than it would be without the tax code.

 

[g5000]

Amount spent on employer sponsored health insurance exemption each year: $659 billion.

And here we see more confusion. When government decides not to tax something, that's not "additional spending". It's actually a small piece of "good government". The fact that the government then taxes lots of other things makes people complain that the taxation is not "even" (which they mistake for "fair"). But then they conclude that more taxation is needed, not less.

You've been listening to liberals too much.

You are making a variation of the "I get to keep more of my own money" argument, and its bogus.

That $659 billion has to be made up for by borrowing and higher tax rates for everyone. So it is paid for out of every other taxpayers pocket, just like an "Obamaphone" is.

The cost of an Obamaphone to a taxpayer is more direct and thus more obvious. The cost of tax expenditures is indirect and not so obvious, and benefit the wealthy more than anyone else, making them far more insidious.

You've been listening to snake oil salesman with a vested interest in keeping the gravy train going.

 

[g5000]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

 

[bendog]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

"Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE" That is true, but with the reality that getting rid of soc sec/medicare, and making significant defense cut, are not really practical politically, I think there's only so much room there. It would be a huge political lift to move closer to a flat tax, with some adjustments for income, and an elimination of just about every deduction. I thought Forbes was the best option in 2000, but W bought off the go in the primary with the promise of looting the Treasury. It may be too late now.

 

[Darkwind]

They are just as likely to vote Republican, as voting against their own interests is nothing new and happens all the time.

That's interesting.

You only have to look at places like Detroit to see if it is actually in their best interest to vote for the free candy.

If you are on welfare, and x party says it wants to downsize or abolish it, then yes you are voting against your interests. Just like a worker would vote against their interests by conceding to longer hours and less pay.

Here is your problem. The GOP does not say they want to downsize or abolish it, but to alter it so that people on it can learn to fend for themselves.

However, that has to be demonized because people actually shown or required to get off the welfare system lose the impetus to vote democrat. Therefore, the left lies about the motives and intent of the right in order to keep power.

 

[rightwinger]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

The devil is in the details

Which expenditures

 

[candycorn]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

Since we all receive benefits from the government in some way, shape, or form, the GOP candidate for President will get substantial support from welfare recipients...yourself included.

 

[g5000]

It's a lie that government gifts are a liberal thing.

Deductions and exemptions and credits are very much a Republican thing, too.

Welfare is about the most bipartisan thing there is. We are ALL slaves, and it is both idiotic and hypocritical to try to paint it as a "liberal" thing.

Here we see the usual confusion of someone who thinks Republicans are conservative.

If anything should have been made abundantly clear about me by now, after all this time I have been on this forum, it has been a very long time since I have considered the Republican party to be fiscally conservative.

 

[g5000]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

Since we all receive benefits from the government in some way, shape, or form, the GOP candidate for President will get substantial support from welfare recipients...yourself included.

Bingo.

 

[g5000]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

The devil is in the details

Which expenditures

All. Every one of them should be banned.

Every time we have "reformed" our tax structure by "closing loopholes" or reducing the number of tax expenditures, the next day our politicians begin the process of putting them all back in, and then some.

Partially reducing tax expenditures is just a way to get paid twice. Once for the first time they were put in the tax code, and again for putting them back in.

So it is time to shut that door all the way, and weld it shut.

Then we can all fill out our federal income tax on a postcard, and people earning identical incomes will pay identical taxes. At a significantly lower tax rate than today.

 

[g5000]

I want a guy who builds a better mouse trap to have the world beating a path to his door and making him filthy rich. And when he dies, I want him to have decided who gets his wealth, not the government. I completely believe the natural concentration of wealth should be impeded as little as possible.

At the same time, I don't believe the rich guy should get an unnatural government transfer of wealth from other people's pockets by receiving a giant mortgage interest deduction. The richer you are, the bigger the tax deduction you get because you can afford a bigger mortgage. It's a highly regressive deduction available only to people who can afford a big house in the first place.

I don't believe anyone should get any extra exemptions, credits, or deductions. Period.

You earn what you earn, and you pay the identical amount of tax as everyone else in your bracket. Period.

A level playing field would be a tremendous boon to our economy.

 

[oldernwiser]

These idiots won't accept the evidence. They are misinformed and uninterested in being well informed.

There is a very good chance that someone on public assistance will vote Republican. Especially if, like most nutters, you consider SS and Medicare to be forms of public assistance.

I watch this happen in every election: A person on public assistance voting for a Republican who has vowed to make their life a living hell because that candidate supports their view on abortion or guns or something totally unrelated to their own life. Personally, I think it's because they're miserable and won't be happy until everyone else is too.

Getting a job and acquiring the dignity of earning your own way in life is considered a "Living Hell" to you? Fascinating.

That's just getting tired and worn out. Go back and read that again - I meant that EXACTLY the way I wrote it, derp.

 

[oldernwiser]

These idiots won't accept the evidence. They are misinformed and uninterested in being well informed.

There is a very good chance that someone on public assistance will vote Republican. Especially if, like most nutters, you consider SS and Medicare to be forms of public assistance.

I watch this happen in every election: A person on public assistance voting for a Republican who has vowed to make their life a living hell because that candidate supports their view on abortion or guns or something totally unrelated to their own life. Personally, I think it's because they're miserable and won't be happy until everyone else is too.

Interesting....another liberal who can not comprehend the Definition of the word Principle...

Btw? How are they Miserable? Did you ask them? Or just assume money is the only thing that makes a person feel blessed/happy?

It seems to me you are the one That's miserable

Another Derp reply.
If you can't follow the conversation sweetheart, sit back and let the adults talk.

 

[hangover]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

The majority of welfare recipients are from red states. Those ignorant red necks down there are too stupid to realize they are voting for bigots that are out to take what little they have. As long as their representative is promising to fuck over Obama, they don't think about losing their welfare. It's like when Walker destroyed the teachers union in Wisconsin, only now do they realize he also destroyed the education system. No foresight.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

Everyone I know with a kid on Medicaid votes Republican.

Many people vote Republicans out of self guilt. My wife once had a client come to her for disability who spent half his time bitching about taxes and welfare and liberals - basically spouting the Republican line. When it came time to show his income turns out he had made less than $5,000 over his entire lifetime.

Many Republican voters also vote Republican because they think THEIR welfare isn't really welfare, that its OK. For instance - how many of you hypocrites went to school on government subsidized student loans? You know your savings in the form of lower interest rates is welfare, right?

 

[hangover]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.

Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.

 

[Darkwind]

These idiots won't accept the evidence. They are misinformed and uninterested in being well informed.

There is a very good chance that someone on public assistance will vote Republican. Especially if, like most nutters, you consider SS and Medicare to be forms of public assistance.

I watch this happen in every election: A person on public assistance voting for a Republican who has vowed to make their life a living hell because that candidate supports their view on abortion or guns or something totally unrelated to their own life. Personally, I think it's because they're miserable and won't be happy until everyone else is too.

Getting a job and acquiring the dignity of earning your own way in life is considered a "Living Hell" to you? Fascinating.

That's just getting tired and worn out. Go back and read that again - I meant that EXACTLY the way I wrote it, derp.

Oh look. An idiot. When you get some reasoning and comprehension skills, you let Me know.

 

[auditor0007]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

You would be very surprised at how many redneck welfare Republicans are actually out there. They are so dumb they don't even understand that they are on welfare. This is because they work low paying jobs but still need some government assistance to make it. But they think when Republicans talk about welfare Queens, they are talking about someone else, so they agree with the cons. It's the funniest shit I've seen in some time, but I see this shit on Facebook all the time.

Yeah.....i'm sure you see people on face book all the time telling the world they're on welfare.

I happen to know a number of people who work full-time but still need some assistance to get by. They don't tell me on Facebook. They've told me in person. I happen to live in the real world where I see and know people from many different life situations.