Romney's appearance at the NAACP convention was a set up... designed to widen the Black White divide. He was hoping to catch them booing his "free stuff" line knowing he could use that to further the "resentment narrative" the Right cultivates with White GOP voters. They are told their tax money is wasted on minorities and freeloaders on safety net programs. Swept under the rug is how Red states seem to be the beneficiaries of much federal spending at the expense of "blue" states. A fascinating study! http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268
One of the earliest and most controversial descriptions of the red-blue divide came from Boston Globe reporter Mike Barnicle, appearing on MSNBC after the 2000 election, when he dubbed the Bush states the “family values” states and the Gore states “the sense of entitlement” states....
Mike Barnicle’s characterization of the red and blue states provided an interesting and, depending on one’s perspective, intuitive starting point for explaining differences between blue and red states. It would seem to make sense that the states that lose money to the federal government would be more likely to vote for the candidate who promised to cut taxes and reduce the scope of government, and that the states that gain from the federal government would support the candidate who would protect or increase federal spending. If Barnicle is correct that Democratic states are “entitlement” states, then we should expect that the states won by Democrats in the past few elections should receive the most in federal spending compared to the tax revenues they send to Washington. In short, Democratic states may be net beneficiaries of federal government spending while Republican states may be net contributors to the federal government.
The evidence shows that such a story is exactly backwards. In a paradox of the Electoral College, Republican presidential candidates since 1984--when data on state tax burdens are first available---have won most of the states that benefit from federal spending, while Democrats have won most of the states that bankroll the federal government. In every year during this 20-year period, between 25 and 32 states have gained more in federal spending programs than they have paid in taxes to the federal government, while the remaining minority of states has footed the bill. This political economy of redistribution plays out in the Electoral College as increasingly Republican states are increasingly dependent on federal spending. These paradoxical empirical patterns hold under several different perspectives on the data, including controlling for state and individual-level conservatism on social issues, military spending per state, and the partisan balance of a state’s governorship and representation in Congress.
Guess those Red GOP states love "free stuff"!
Comments
I'm familiar and use this data all the time since many of my friends and family are conservatives that live in Red States. Many will argue that since red states have more military facilities, military retirees, and regular retirees, that's why, and it's earned, they'll say. But if you break it out also by Social Services, Welfare, and Medicaid - measuring the "moochers," in conservative-speak, the Red States lead there too.
Here's an interactive map I use all the time - measures per capita county by county statistics of Federal funds absorbed by counties, and breaks it out by type of spending. I find it very funny that Detroit's Wayne County - Conservatives' poster child of "Democrat policies" actually takes less government money per capita than much of Lilly white Eastern Kentucky or South Central Missouri, where I'm sure consists mostly of Limbaugh listening, Detroit hating, Teabaggers. LOL!
Sad thing is, there are many many counties that government provides over 30-40% of the income....always rural.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us
Ironic thing is, the Koch Brothers' Tax Foundation publicizes this Red-Blue pattern for the purpose of inciting Blue state citizens to lower their taxes in the Blue states.
It comes down to population more than any other factor. Most conservative states are sparely populated. Progressive states are heavely populated so by shear numbers they pay in more than conservative states. The real test for government assistence would be the amount of money spent in true dollars on welfare. The heavily populated areas are way more dependant on the government to run their lives than the conservative states.
lets look at facts north dakota for example gets more back than it pays in. California pays in more than it gets back. There are more Rich people in beverly hills than the population of most cities in north dakota. There are more people on welfare in L.A. Than the entire population of north dakota. So in real dollars california pays in more (hollywood) buts also uses more compton. the per capita is decieving because it takes the amount paid out and divides it per population. So large populations will look like they get a smaller amount per person. Not dening anything i am just more observant.
Not dening anything i am just more observant.
Your take on Romney's speech was mine as well. I want to give him credit for appearing to look really uncomfortable, maybe he has some sort of conscience, but I haven't spent a lot of time watching him and everyone says he looks uncomfortable all the time.
I can't wait until we see the clip of him receiving all the cheers when he appears before the National Council of La Raza and declares that he won't reverse Obama's order on illegal alien college graduates, and how he's going to do so much more.
Not dening anything i am just more observant.
No. have always said the federal government needs to stop all welfare to anyone for any reason. Now if a state needs money to fix the post roads that is ok because it is constitutional...
................So what you're saying is each Red States moocher is just better at getting handouts each than Blue State moocher......I still think some of those Red State Teabag counties should take a look at themselves before they grab their "Small Government" sign for their next Teabagger rally.....LOL!
lets look at facts north dakota for example gets more back than it pays in. California pays in more than it gets back. There are more Rich people in beverly hills than the population of most cities in north dakota. There are more people on welfare in L.A. Than the entire population of north dakota. So in real dollars california pays in more (hollywood) buts also uses more compton. the per capita is decieving because it takes the amount paid out and divides it per population. So large populations will look like they get a smaller amount per person. Not dening anything i am just more observant.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf
In 1981 Cal was getting $1.06 back for every dollar dollar it sent to Washington in taxes and by 2005 it was .78 cents. N Dakota started in 1981 getting .96 cents back and by 2005 it was $1.68. .
Not dening anything i am just more observant.
................So what you're saying is each Red States moocher is just better at getting handouts each than Blue State moocher......I still think some of those Red State Teabag counties should take a look at themselves before they grab their "Small Government" sign for their next Teabagger rally.....LOL!
What i am saying is it depends on what the money is used for, unconstitutional money has to stop.
The citizens of each state should be looking at their state in order to fix any problems they may have.
68 billion on light rail.
The problem, "bossman," is that it is a lot like interpreting the Bible, and you don't find a lot of agreement on that either. What is or is not "constitutional" depends on a very complex debate about hermeneutics and "living documents" where "letter" and "spirit" are at play. Your idea that "welfare" is not constitutional at the federal level is a minority religious opinion, not the shared belief of others who revere the Constitutions as much as you do. The "intention" of the Founders was that we be a "self-governing, free people," not that we had to observe every jot and tittle of the texts they wrote.
The reasons to do welfare with a federal equalizing effect is to preserve stability and allow for the diversity of the states. I would have far less problem with sending money from the urban areas of concentration to the rural areas of sparser population to help these less economically powerful areas be "in it together" with the rest of us instead of being our local exploitative source for cheap labor or no environmental regs, were they less resentful of the charity. I think "united, we stand" has some real meaning.
I would also like to factor out the military fat these "anti-government" tax-haters suck their money off. We might see who was really doing something smart economically were it not for the opportunity cost black hole of military spending. Then there are the banksters and all the bubblers whose prosperity left others holding the bag. Great examples for capitalism, hey!
What the cons never mention is that federal funding runs through states and gets spent locally. Its guidelines and regulations support the fiscal responsibility values asserted on the Right, and if they are corrupted it is even more reason for tougher regulation and more government. There is no magic to local politics v. corruption. The Tip O'Neil corrolary ought to be that "all corruption is local, too." Getting DC ought of the picture does not stop the crooks at the State House or City Hall.
The citizens of each and every locale ought to be alert to responding to their local human needs, and if they need money from the national collective to meet local needs, they should be able to get it. No Americans should feel that they are shit out of luck or on their own without help just because their locality lacks resources and abounds in problems. Nor should local prejudices and biases be allowed to sully the American Credo of universal liberty, freedom and dignity. This is what justice is about, and we ought to be in that cause together with some passion.
I would prefer to debate the actual spending and its actual benefits or damage without the Constitutional Fundamentalism deciding the question a priori. We could find lots of agreement in how the Supremes are protecting the freedom of money against the obvious damage it does to democracy or some of the economically driven "eminent domain" processes. How do you feel about the Michigan "executive managers" who wipe out local democracy? In the end, I think the Constitution supports democracy and opposes its subversion, not that the Federalist theologians agree. I just don't see the Founders risking their lives and sacred honor to establish a predatory plutocracy.
68 billion on light rail.
Any state that wants to be part of a 21st Century rail infrastructure ought to be able to draw on these funds. It has nothing to do with the debate about welfare, and when you look at infrastructure, it was always the lower populated regions that needed the interstates and rails to get their products to the urban markets.
The con smear of modern rail systems is acting out stupid. Get a horse!
................So what you're saying is each Red States moocher is just better at getting handouts each than Blue State moocher......I still think some of those Red State Teabag counties should take a look at themselves before they grab their "Small Government" sign for their next Teabagger rally.....LOL!
What i am saying is it depends on what the money is used for, unconstitutional money has to stop. The citizens of each state should be looking at their state in order to fix any problems they may have.
That sounds all good and stuff but to be brutally honest here, if all so called "unconstitutional" money stopped, the country would fall to it's knees and the economy would sink so low it may never, ever bounce back. Crime would skyrocket to never before seen levels and there would be general chaos throughout the country.
The equivalent of that would be if banks were forced to immediately stop loaning out money that it doesn't have in it's coffers. Banks create money out of thin air for the sake of profits but nobody wants the government to create money out of thin air for it's people.
PP, "Romney's appearance at the NAACP convention was a set up... designed to widen the Black White divide. He was hoping to catch them booing his "free stuff" line knowing he could use that to further the "resentment narrative" the Right cultivates with White GOP voters. "
You listen to bitch Clinton too much. That was her line. As for your assertion that red states get more federal money than blue states, one would need to dissect the demographics of each state to make a fair assessment of you claim.
al3, "Sad thing is, there are many many counties that government provides over 30-40% of the income....always rural."
I looked at your map and if you want to call it sad that many of the counties get 30-40% of the income and them being rural, why don't you look at the demographical makeup of those counties. Did it ever occur to your and peepot's feeble leftsided brains that the population of those counties consists of a large percentage of elderly that get social security and are on medicare as they PAID into those systems. As for them being rural, yes the government is quite generous when it comes to handing out ag subsidies, especial to large agricultural corporations like monsato and ADM.
Carguy, you really need to get the b-word out of your brain/mouth reflex. Makes you look even more like a jerk than some of your ideas.
Then you get something right, and it is hard to put the two sides together. Yes, ag subsidies to rural America go to Industrial Ag more than to small farmers and "farm to table" or "all must eat" efforts. We could agree on moving away from Industrial Ag to local and owner/occupied farms, and we could connect our food security system to get the price and market filter out of the way of efficient and effective exchange. Hunger and food surpluses do not square.
I would love to see Obama take some Panthers to address the NRA so we could film the reactions. It would be a Dave Chappelle skit, but the reaction already exists without him going.
If Romney did not expect to and want to get booed for his audience at home with tv's, he needs a new speech writer and a sense of reality. He showed it later in the "something for nothing" piece of racebait. From an "investment bankster," this is ironic, but not funny.
I went to your map al3, and the area of Texas I live in gets better than 30% of its income from the frederal government. However looking at the age of the population of my countiy and the surrounding counties reveals that more than 20% of the population is over 65. So, they would get SS and medicare. The county I live in which is heavily industrial has only 16.9% of the population over 65. But some of the adjacent counties have nearly 26% over 65. Plus, the region is heavily rural.
I do not consider people on SS and medicare to be receiving entitlements, they paid into those systems and are due those payments. So, IMO the analogy needs to be analyzed with those considerations in mind, or they can be used for misleading bullshit.
As for the blue state/red state fascination, and Barnicle's characterization, Texas receives .94 cents for every dollar sent to DC, and we are in way better shape financially that most states.
PP, "Romney's appearance at the NAACP convention was a set up... designed to widen the Black White divide. He was hoping to catch them booing his "free stuff" line knowing he could use that to further the "resentment narrative" the Right cultivates with White GOP voters. "
al3, "Sad thing is, there are many many counties that government provides over 30-40% of the income....always rural."
I looked at your map and if you want to call it sad that many of the counties get 30-40% of the income and them being rural, why don't you look at the demographical makeup of those counties. Did it ever occur to your and peepot's feeble leftsided brains that the population of those counties consists of a large percentage of elderly that get social security and are on medicare as they PAID into those systems. As for them being rural, yes the government is quite generous when it comes to handing out ag subsidies, especial to large agricultural corporations like monsato and ADM.
The NYT map data can be divided by "government handout" stream, if you will. You can look at All Gov Benefits, or separately by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Support, Veterans Benefits, or Unemployment insurance.
In my claim above you are correct, this includes all gov benefits, including "earned" entitlements. Subtract out that, and there are many rural counties that take 20%+ of their income from government programs - in the "mooching" categories. I am making a leap here that many of these rural counties are solidly conservative. And it doesn't count Ag subsidies.
In my other general claims about rural counties vs. Detriot's Wayne county, I only count Medicaid and Income Support (Food stamps, Aid to low income families, EI Tax credit). As you note, Medicare, SS, and Veterans Benefits can be argued were paid for. That's fair. I don't count unemployment, because even though conservatrives consider those taking it as "mooching,"much of this is paid into also.
Many will also argue that the "black belt" counties of the rural Southeast are just as guilty of "mooching." That's fair too. But these black counties probably aren't made of Tea Partiers who rage against government. I made an assumption that the rural counties of Appalachia and the Ozarks are pretty white. These are among the worst in accepting "unearned" entitilements, per capita. My point is rural white counties, are most likely raging conservatives, listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch Fox, hate Detroit moochers, are Tea Partiers that want to cut government, yet have their hand out each month for their government check. That's all.
Even when you adjust out the "earned" government handouts, it's pretty clear that Red states and rural areas lead the pack in per-capita acceptance of government handouts. Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, Red + Rural = a HUGE liklihood of being a "moocher." That's what I base my claims on. And this map is per capita, not total. There's other data widely publicized by the Tax Foundation that's total, and based on state, and it pretty much shows the same thing.
I agree with you about the "earned" entitlements, that's fine and that's fair...but don't conservatives rage against ALL entitlements? I can't recall any Tea Partiers with signs saying "I earned my entitlements!".....or "Cut Medicaid, Food Stamps, Aid to Poor Families, and the Earned Income Tax Credit!"
Are you saying that in general Medicare, SS, and Vets benefits are OK, if you paid into them?
I don't even consider them "entitlements" because the vast majority of folks recieving them paid into those systems in one way or another (and I speak of vets in the another sense).
PP, "Romney's appearance at the NAACP convention was a set up... designed to widen the Black White divide. He was hoping to catch them booing his "free stuff" line knowing he could use that to further the "resentment narrative" the Right cultivates with White GOP voters. "
You listen to bitch Clinton too much. That was her line.
It's amazing… all these Right wingers that no doubt protest "redistribution" are looking for ways to deny it could ever mostly benefit Red states.
I don't even consider them "entitlements" because the vast majority of folks recieving them paid into those systems in one way or another (and I speak of vets in the another sense).
My my, we seem to have hit a sore spot with our resident dittoheads.
It's unfortunate that the skills of so many were wasted during these 99 weeks. I would have preferred to see another WPA or CETA program to hire these people during a major recession after say 13 weeks so at least they were contributing something. I'm still amazed at the work done in the 30's. I have plenty of old Federal Writers Project material. My dad worked in the CCC camps on state parks I still use. Hell, I and a friend worked on two different CETA historical research projects back in the 70's. That material is still being used by my town.
But the Right wants to have it both ways... to complain about unemployment benefits AND government work programs. But corporate welfare is OK.
PP, "Not quite Einstein. All one has to do is look at the DOLLARS and ask why so-called Red States seem to be on the gravy train. "
I refer you to post #21. I don't consider people over 65 receiving SS and on medicare as being on the "gravy train".
No one denies that SS benefits represents a payment. But unless there are fewer workers in the state now than before, then these new SS contributions should negate SS payments... especially since we Boomers have built up a couple trillion SURPLUS since the 1983 Reagan SS tax increase.
Now, have anything intelligent to add? Didn't think so.
PP, " But unless there are fewer workers in the state now than before, then these new SS contributions should negate SS payments... "
I do not think that the map of al3 took the ages of the counties into account, just the amout of federal monires recieved. And as I stated, the counties of the region of Texas that I live in average over 20% of the population being over the age of 65. If one took into account that some people elect to start drawing SS at 62, then I would postulate that somewhere around 25% of the population in my region are drawing SS. What "actual numbers" do you want, you attempting to insult asshole?!!!
Texas is a "red" state but we send more to DC than we get back and are still in decent financial shape!!!
PP, "especially since we Boomers have built up a couple trillion SURPLUS since the 1983 Reagan SS tax increase"
That and more has been spent by the federal gov and replaced with worthless IOUs from the treasury by a government that is almost $16 trillion in debt. How about you loaning me a million dollars and I will give you a post dated check you can cash in the year 2050? Dumbass
One wat to fix SS would be to make all incomes and capital gains subject to the FICA tax, instead of dropping of at $106,000.
................So what you're saying is each Red States moocher is just better at getting handouts each than Blue State moocher......I still think some of those Red State Teabag counties should take a look at themselves before they grab their "Small Government" sign for their next Teabagger rally.....LOL!
What i am saying is it depends on what the money is used for, unconstitutional money has to stop. The citizens of each state should be looking at their state in order to fix any problems they may have.
That sounds all good and stuff but to be brutally honest here, if all so called "unconstitutional" money stopped, the country would fall to it's knees and the economy would sink so low it may never, ever bounce back. Crime would skyrocket to never before seen levels and there would be general chaos throughout the country.
The equivalent of that would be if banks were forced to immediately stop loaning out money that it doesn't have in it's coffers. Banks create money out of thin air for the sake of profits but nobody wants the government to create money out of thin air for it's people.
I disagree that the country would colapse and never recover. I think if we stopped all federal welfare, corporate subsidizes and gave every dime collected for social programs back to those who have paid into the system. we as a country would be just fine. The people would realize that we do not need the federal government doing everything. We can get by without ssi and medicare. Those programs are failures anyway, only paying out what the government thinks you need not what you actually paid into the system.
For example Alaska got back about $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington in 2005
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf
Are you suggesting it's all due to retiree costs? Let's look at two retiree Meccas… when Florida got back only 97 cents on the dollar and Arizona got back $1.19.
Your logic, as always, is flawed. Please stick to something you know... ancient muscle cars.
One wat to fix SS would be to make all incomes and capital gains subject to the FICA tax, instead of dropping of at $106,000.
This would do nothing to fix ssi. Each person as part of working pays into ssi as you pay in more you are supposed to receive more back later. So raising it to cover over 106,000 will collect morr money but require higher payouts as well. Taxing capital gains (money earned and already taxed) will cut down on investment in the u.s.
PP, "Are you suggesting it's all due to retiree costs? Let's look at two retiree Meccas… when Florida got back only 97 cents on the dollar and Arizona got back $1.19. "
Goddamn it, pisspot, i am merely talking about the region of Texas that I live in!!! I can read and know that Texas is one of only 17 states that pays in more that ity gets back. I understand that. And as I stated on the voter fraud thread, you wouldn't acknowledge proof of anythinf if it went against your prejudiced left brain meme anyway, not matter what kind of proof you were slapped in the face with. I never claimed my logic represented anything but my region of Texas, you made that stupid assumption.
Gotta keep making reference to something irrelevant to the topic, don't you??? You are becoming irrelevant.
Idleman, SSI is not the same as SS.
PP, "Are you suggesting it's all due to retiree costs? Let's look at two retiree Meccas… when Florida got back only 97 cents on the dollar and Arizona got back $1.19. "
Goddamn it, pisspot, i am merely talking about the region of Texas that I live in!!!
AND THAT'S THE POINT! You take some small example and extrapolate to everything. Unless you're saying no one should bother reading your posts since you have nothing of value to say. Which is it Car Man?
Merely your opinion, peepot, and opinions are like assholes everybody got one and they all stink including yours.
Merely your opinion, peepot, and opinions are like assholes everybody got one and they all stink including yours.
Merely your opinion, peepot, and opinions are like assholes everybody got one and they all stink including yours.
Asking to see an ID does not surpress the vote of legal law obeying citizens. If it does explain how it does? It is not a poll tax. The poor and the elderly have ID they need it to participate in government programs, cash a check, deposit a check, open a bank account, pick up their meds, rent a movie at block buster, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, check out a book at a public library, use a credit card and the list goes on.
The same could be said of dems and their voter ID phobia. I am not defending the repubs here either. Both parties, IMO, are controlled by the same money and don't give a damn about the voter. Their main objective is to keep in power. The good cop/bad cop is becoming so obvious sickening. Democrats get campaign money from the AMA, big pharma, insurance companies and Wall Street the same as do the Republicans. It has been disgusting watching them squirm away from their promises.
Hey bossman, Texas will not accept student ID but will honor that NRA membership for voting. Really!
In Michigan, students have to go back home to register and vote, during the school term. See any economic impact yet?
The problem does not exist, so the "solution" is accountable for all the "unintended consequences" if you take the advocates seriously, or is just intended to suppress the votes the GOPimps want lost.
I don't care how easy it seems for you to have this required. This is the point you really need to get over. It is how hard it is for people you do not know and have no idea about how they live that matters. If they are saying "poll tax" or crying foul, chances are these laws are not about doing something easy or everyday. If you cannot see the inequity in the purges in Florida and the terrible methodology being used, I would not expect you to think about it either.
Play fair or expect people to fight back.
Merely your opinion, peepot, and opinions are like assholes everybody got one and they all stink including yours.
Anyway this thread is NOT about GOP attempts at voter supression.
Camaroman. Both parties are "controlled" by the money because the money has been enshrined as the way democracy is established by the Supremes. It is a fraud. The GOPimps luxuriate in the system they have helped create and sponsor while the Dems try to play financial catch-up to be able to compete. In the course, some Dems (DLC) embrace the game thinking that they can compete with enough wealth and connections to be successful players in the duopoly.
The individuals who favored this course knew that they would gain the clubcard and be assured of a fine retirement; but it was always playing for the Washington Generals against the Harlem Globetrotters if "winning" mattered. An occasional Democrat President would be no problem if the course of Empire were set and politics could be limited to its short-term management. No change really allowed, and no challenge to the basic global agenda and its establishment.
I do not see the Ron Paul or Libertarian wing of the Right as more than a pressure vent for dissent. On the Left, we have a different kind of impotence; but both suffer from the monied duopoly. There is a lot more dissent from the CU on the Left than on the Right; and more interest in democracy on the Left as well.
Merely your opinion, peepot, and opinions are like assholes everybody got one and they all stink including yours.
Anyway this thread is NOT about GOP attempts at voter supression.
No it is not about voter ID laws but you brought it up.
I have read the voter act of 1965, asking to prove you are legally allowed to vote does not go against that law.
The states that are passing the voter id laws want to ensure only citizens that are legally allowed to vote, vote. This might knock out 2 to 5 percent of the illegal aliens, dead, and felons that tend to vote democrat. However this will make the elections more Democratic on nature.
http://02f8ec3.netsolhost.com/wam/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1584:alarming-vote-fraud-statistics&catid=93:election-year-2010&Itemid=120
Now, I realize this was written by a repub lawyer. But, is he lying? I bet some here will say he is, if that is the case prove it.
Quote, "The news media is utterly focused on the Democratic Party spin that voters were "confused" in Palm Beach, FL. They are ignoring the 15,000 Bush and 3,400 Buchanan votes that statistical evidence can show were stolen by fraud in these 19,120 ballots. There is explicit statistical evidence of massive ballot tampering in Palm Beach FL. These ballots show Democratic voter fraud....NOT Republican fraud or "voter error" as publicized by the national media.
One early excuse given to the national news media by Democratic "spokesmen" to explain the Palm Beach fraud was that people were 'exchanging" their double-punched ballots - and were given new ones...If so, over 26 people per minute "were confused" and voted twice for President! This many errors were supposedly made, detected, and corrected (by handing out new ballots) while no person made any "error" in any other race. This excuse would also mean that more voters were being handed new ballots per minute than new voters were being signed in. (19,120 "double punched" Democratic ballots divided by 12 hours, there are fewer than 100 precincts in Palm Beach County where the precinct level returns are suspect .
Given the demographics of the Palm Beach are, and its high concentration of minorities, it is perhaps surprising that Buchanan-Foster didn't get more votes than they are credited with receiving. There is a simple, single explanation for ALL of these 19,120 problems in ONE set of ballots in ONE district in ONE state. 15,000 Bush ballots, and 3,400 more Buchanan ballots, were double-punched to imitate a Gore vote, AFTER legitimate voters left their polling booth.
A Republican voter will have in almost every case have punched Bush + several other Republican candidates. So look for how many "Bush + Gore" ballots have mostly Republican choices below. THESE ARE FRAUDS. They represent Bush votes that were stolen. There are about 15,000 of these ballots. A "true" Buchanan voter would have punched Buchanan and a mix of other candidates....A Libertarian voter would most likely be choosing a variety of flowing positions, depending on his personal opinion of freedom and regulation. There will be about 2000-3000 of these ballots. A "mistaken" "Gore + Buchanan" voter would ALMOST CERTAINLY have chosen the Democrats in the rest of the ballot.....or, IF AS THEY CLAIM, those "Gore + Buchanan" voters that were "told to push the second hole" really meant "only followed directions" ---- THEN the rest of the ballot would be solid Democrat, or blank. There will be approximately 0.3% of the total ballots used (1380 out of 460,000) that are legitimate errors or protest votes with a several candidates selected. NOT "confused" 15,000 Bush voters in 1996....and 15,000 other "confused" Dole and Perot voters in 2000. "
http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/votefraudstats.htm
You can attack the messenger all you want, but the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to democratic voter fraud. Looks like the dems tried to knock off gop voters.
http://02f8ec3.netsolhost.com/wam/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1584:alarming-vote-fraud-statistics&catid=93:election-year-2010&Itemid=120
Now, I realize this was written by a repub lawyer. But, is he lying? I bet some here will say he is, if that is the case prove it.
BTW Einstein, before you repost you might want to get it straight in your head the difference between VOTER fraud and ELECTION fraud. Voter fraud is done by an individual willfully trying to cast an illegal ballot with the hope of affecting an election. It doesn't cover unintentional acts that might violate the law like not realizing ex-cons can't vote in some states. THIS is what the GOP ID laws claim to be targeting... a virtually nonexistent problem. And when ANYONE insists on doing something despite their rationale not holding up... then they're hiding their true agenda.
Anyway this thread is NOT about GOP attempts at voter suppression.
No it is not about voter ID laws but you brought it up. [/quote] To illustrate a point about CM's political pathology not to change the topic.
I have read the voter act of 1965, asking to prove you are legally allowed to vote does not go against that law. The states that are passing the voter id laws want to ensure only citizens that are legally allowed to vote, vote. This might knock out 2 to 5 percent of the illegal aliens, dead, and felons that tend to vote democrat. However this will make the elections more Democratic on nature.
In 1973 the Act was extended http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1973aa
(b) As used in this section, the term “test or device” means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.
As for your last comment, you're demonstrating your contempt for reality. There's NO proof of such voter fraud, therefore the GOP's efforts to knock off 2-5% of the Democratic voters is nothing but a blatant attempt to steal elections in key states.
Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?
Thanks P. Appreciating the dynamic of shame and projection helps. The Red States hate knowing they need the Liberal City more than the Liberal City needs them. They may even be right in the idea that something is wrong with this picture and that "fly over" is more than demeaning. But, their complaint targets the wrong sources of "power" and they ignore the powers that are really operative.
In the Tea Party Narcotic given them, the Red State reactionaries find the "True American" narrative very attractive. They are being victimized by all these "newcomers" and "wannabes" who are not White "Christian" patriots. These people of color do not understand proper behavior, so we can expect to be on guard against them doing whatever they feel they have a right to do or the whole world will go to hell. It would never be the fault of White Christians in power, but there are a lot of Jewish bankers they will include in the enemy of America list.
The narrative can be as simple or complex as you require. The frame is elastic, but only if you don't question it, the narrative, itself. Once you identify the self-serving ideological deflection, people who are falling for it look like fools. Admitting that one has been fooled is about being a fool, not just being wrong. No wonder the reaction is so strong.
Anyway this thread is NOT about GOP attempts at voter suppression.
No it is not about voter ID laws but you brought it up.
I have read the voter act of 1965, asking to prove you are legally allowed to vote does not go against that law. The states that are passing the voter id laws want to ensure only citizens that are legally allowed to vote, vote. This might knock out 2 to 5 percent of the illegal aliens, dead, and felons that tend to vote democrat. However this will make the elections more Democratic on nature.
In 1973 the Act was extended http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1973aa
(b) As used in this section, the term “test or device” means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.
As for your last comment, you're demonstrating your contempt for reality. There's NO proof of such voter fraud, therefore the GOP's efforts to knock off 2-5% of the Democratic voters is nothing but a blatant attempt to steal elections in key states.
Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?
[/quote]
Who do you think benefits from illegal aliens , the dead and felons voting? The democrat party does, however every liberal city/state in the u.s. Is broke and getting worse. Part of it is because of the liberal policies and part of it is because of the federal govermment confiscating money to feed other liberal polices in other states. However the cause of thr ptoblem is liberal polices and governmemt.