Which Demographic Group Supports Obama The Most?

[FaninAma]

Hint: It is also the group with the highest rate of poverty and whose rate of poverty has increased the most under the current President.

Funny how that works.

[badger]

"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last XX years. They're still poor." ~Charles Barkley

[FaninAma]

"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last XX years. They're still poor." ~Charles Barkley

It is apparent that history is not a subject that receives a lot of attention in this country.

It is also apparent we have a large segment of our society that has always made decisions based on emotion.

[FaninAma]

http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php

President Obama's record on this issue doesn't stand up to his rhetoric.

Also remember this simple economic fact:

As more borrowed money is spent on this issue the more we see real inflation which in turn dirves the poverty threshold even higher.

Deficit spending hurts everybody but it takes the heaviest toll on the poor and elderly.

But by all means lets just keep throwing money we don't have at this issue.

Obama and the democrats claim the GOP wants to balance the budget on the backs of the lederly and poor. My contention is that the deficit spending by both parties is crushing the elderly and poor. If you accept that you cannot raise taxes enough to balance the budget then it would appear that the refusal of the democrats to consider significant budget cuts is institutionalizing poverty in this country.

Yes, military cuts should be on the table. Yes, tax increases should be on the table. But it is imperative that the democrats show that they are serious about cutting entitlement spending before they are to be trusted enough to compromise on the other issues. That game was played by Reagan and Bush I and it resulted in no budget cuts, only tax increases.

[diverdog]

http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php

President Obama's record on this issue doesn't stand up to his rhetoric.

Also remember this simple economic fact:

As more borrowed money is spent on this issue the more we see real inflation which in turn dirves the poverty threshold even higher.

Deficit spending hurts everybody but it takes the heaviest toll on the poor and elderly.

But by all means lets just keep throwing money we don't have at this issue.

Obama and the democrats claim the GOP wants to balance the budget on the backs of the lederly and poor. My contention is that the deficit spending by both parties is crushing the elderly and poor. If you accept that you cannot raise taxes enough to balance the budget then it would appear that the refusal of the democrats to consider significant budget cuts is institutionalizing poverty in this country.

Yes, military cuts should be on the table. Yes, tax increases should be on the table. But it is imperative that the democrats show that they are serious about cutting entitlement spending before they are to be trusted enough to compromise on the other issues. That game was played by Reagan and Bush I and it resulted in no budget cuts, only tax increases.


How is it crushing the elderly and the poor? I also find it interesting the states with the largest percentage of poor are red states.

[Ton Loc]

How is it crushing the elderly and the poor? I also find it interesting the states with the largest percentage of poor are red states.

Also the lowest educated. Which makes sense.

[FaninAma]

How is it crushing the elderly and the poor? I also find it interesting the states with the largest percentage of poor are red states.

You really don't understand how deficit spending causes inflation which in turn drives up the price of essentials like food, gas and electricity...the things that even the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes need? If you don't understand that concept then it suddenly becomes more clear why you have the political values you do.

You can also add the fact that most seniors are on fixed incomes most of which are interest drawing securities because they are safe. How has the interest rate been lately? And why is that? Because if the Fed were to allow interest rates to increase the federal budget deficit would increase since the cost of servicing the debt would increase.

What does the location of the poor have to do with anything? If you can't afford food or gas because it has doubled over the past 4 years does it really matter if you live in Mississippi or New York. And I always find it interesting that the poverty statistics are based on the same level of income whether in a low cost of living state or a high cost of living state.

One other thing about the red state-blue state debate. Most of the red states do not have the budget problems that the blue states do. I wonder why that is? Couldn't be because the red states spend less money they don't have on social programs could it? Nah.

I will tell you this. I am going to be very pi**ed when my federal tax dollars are going to bail out the state governments of California, New York, and Illinois.

Do you even notice what is occuring in Europe?

[FaninAma]

Also the lowest educated. Which makes sense.

Link? An educated liberal such as yourself surely understand the importance of documenting serious claims like that.

[LiveLaughLove]

Obama gets the idiot vote by a three to one margin.

He wins the gullible vote by two to one, and the slacker vote by two to one.

His best demographic however, has to be the choom vote, by a ten to one margin.

The problem is none of those demographics can figure out just which pole their supposed to be at to vote.

I saw some standing next to a barbershop pole, and heard some are making plans for the north pole.

[FaninAma]

The answer to the question is single women and households headed by single women. The more this group becomes dependent on the federal government the higher the number that fall into poverty.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

One other thing about the red state-blue state debate. Most of the red states do not have the budget problems that the blue states do. I wonder why that is? Couldn't be because the red states spend less money they don't have on social programs could it? Nah.

Or could it be that red states receive more tax dollars than they contribute?

Disclaimer: the data is from 2005, a few less red states now
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/

Also here's a link to education attainment by state, yes its wikipedia but its in a much more readable format than the US Census Bureau's website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment#cite _note-2009C-0

Lot of red states and California at the bottom


FYI for those still banging on the welfare queen myth, TANF recipients are lower than they were for all but two of the Bush years.

[Ton Loc]

Link? An educated liberal such as yourself surely understand the importance of documenting serious claims like that.


The answer to the question is single women and households headed by single women. The more this group becomes dependent on the federal government the higher the number that fall into poverty.

Here's a link (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0233.pdf) to the US Census site but SCS link is way easier to read.

Its not hard to use a little common sense and figure it out.

On average - If you're poor it stands to reason you're most likely less educated.

[diverdog]

You really don't understand how deficit spending causes inflation which in turn drives up the price of essentials like food, gas and electricity...the things that even the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes need? If you don't understand that concept then it suddenly becomes more clear why you have the political values you do.

The only problem is that your statement is not correct. Here is a chart that shows the US inflation rate from 1980 thru September 2012:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

Essentially since Ronald Reagan began deficit spending in the modern era the rate of inflation has remained relatively flat after the huge it plunged from its highs.

And this from the Philly Fed:


EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON INFLATION AND DEFICITSEconomic theory suggests that the strength of the relationship between government budget deficits and infla- tion depends on whether monetary policy is independent or dependent relative to fiscal policy. In countries where seigniorage is an important component of government finance,
we are likely to find that govern- ment budget deficits and inflation are empirically linked. In countries with independent monetary authorities, the link between deficits and inflation is likely to be weaker.
Evidence for the U.S. Economy.
As we can see from a plot of deficits and inflation for the U.S. economy since the end of World War II, there does not appear to be much of a rela- tionship between government budget deficits and inflation (Figure 4). The contemporaneous correlation between federal budget deficits and inflation (GDP deflator inflation) is essentially zero. It is possible that deficits today are more highly correlated with future inflation than with current inflation — it may take some time for deficits to be felt in the form of higher inflation. But even if we look for the largest cor- relation between current deficits and future inflation, we find that it is still rather low at 10 percent, when current deficits are correlated against inflation

Inflation is linked to monetary policy and so far the Fed has shown great resolve in fighting inflation. So far it has been a non-issue.



You can also add the fact that most seniors are on fixed incomes most of which are interest drawing securities because they are safe. How has the interest rate been lately? And why is that? Because if the Fed were to allow interest rates to increase the federal budget deficit would increase since the cost of servicing the debt would increase.

All investments have risk. CD's and money markets face interest rate risk. Anyone who is not diversified is asking to take a bath if they are to concentrated in one area.

The problem with your statement is that lower interest rates may hurt savers and senior citizens but it also helps borrowers. Seniors may be able to refinance their home and get a lower rate. The can also buy cars and other items with lower long term interest rates. For those that rely on the government for income and medical care I would think that it would be good to keep the rate of interest on servicing the debt low so it does not take away from other programs.


What does the location of the poor have to do with anything? If you can't afford food or gas because it has doubled over the past 4 years does it really matter if you live in Mississippi or New York. And I always find it interesting that the poverty statistics are based on the same level of income whether in a low cost of living state or a high cost of living state.

It has to do with the policies of those states....particularly education. Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, etc have historically had bad schools.


One other thing about the red state-blue state debate. Most of the red states do not have the budget problems that the blue states do. I wonder why that is? Couldn't be because the red states spend less money they don't have on social programs could it? Nah.

They are able to have less taxes because most red states get far more back from Washington than they send. If Oklahoma got back the same percentage as Delaware Oklahoma's budget deficit would soar. BTW do you know that almost a quarter of the folks in Oklahoma work for the government?


I will tell you this. I am going to be very pi**ed when my federal tax dollars are going to bail out the state governments of California, New York, and Illinois.

Actually it is the other way around. Their taxes are bailing out your state. They are the ones who should be pissed.



Do you even notice what is occuring in Europe?



Again other than Greece and Portugal this is a banking crisis caused as a result of a real estate bubble. We are nowhere near the level of government support that exists in Europe.

[diverdog]

The answer to the question is single women and households headed by single women. The more this group becomes dependent on the federal government the higher the number that fall into poverty.

Do you have evidence to back this up?

[diverdog]

http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php

President Obama's record on this issue doesn't stand up to his rhetoric.

Also remember this simple economic fact:

As more borrowed money is spent on this issue the more we see real inflation which in turn dirves the poverty threshold even higher.

Deficit spending hurts everybody but it takes the heaviest toll on the poor and elderly.

But by all means lets just keep throwing money we don't have at this issue.

Obama and the democrats claim the GOP wants to balance the budget on the backs of the lederly and poor. My contention is that the deficit spending by both parties is crushing the elderly and poor. If you accept that you cannot raise taxes enough to balance the budget then it would appear that the refusal of the democrats to consider significant budget cuts is institutionalizing poverty in this country.

Yes, military cuts should be on the table. Yes, tax increases should be on the table. But it is imperative that the democrats show that they are serious about cutting entitlement spending before they are to be trusted enough to compromise on the other issues. That game was played by Reagan and Bush I and it resulted in no budget cuts, only tax increases.

Your link does not provide any correlation between deficit spending and poverty. None!

[Midtowner]

I will tell you this. I am going to be very pi**ed when my federal tax dollars are going to bail out the state governments of California, New York, and Illinois.


I'd rather they just declare bankruptcy.

That said, if you're in Oklahoma, your state receives more federal dollars than it receives, so I wouldn't brag too loudly about your self sufficiency.

[FaninAma]

Your link does not provide any correlation between deficit spending and poverty. None!

That is not what I said. I said deficit spending does not help the poverty rate and in fact it hurts those already in poverty.

I also inferred that your chances of being in poverty are higher if you are black or a single woman and that despite the massive amounts of spending to combat poverty it has not changed the rates since the mid 60's.

http://www.civitasreview.com/budget-taxes/massive-deficit-spending-to-hurt-nations-poor/

[FaninAma]

I'd rather they just declare bankruptcy.

That said, if you're in Oklahoma, your state receives more federal dollars than it receives, so I wouldn't brag too loudly about your self sufficiency.

But you are ignoring the incredible amount of state sponored social spending. That's why they are bankrupt.

[Midtowner]

But you are ignoring the incredible amount of state sposnored social spending. That's why they are bankrupt.

It probably has more to do with a sudden contraction of their revenue base. This is especially true in states hit hard by the housing crash which relied on property taxes.

--yet one more reason a state income tax beats the hell out of high property taxes.

[FaninAma]

The only problem is that your statement is not correct. Here is a chart that shows the US inflation rate from 1980 thru September 2012:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

Essentially since Ronald Reagan began deficit spending in the modern era the rate of inflation has remained relatively flat after the huge it plunged from its highs.

And this from the Philly Fed:



Inflation is linked to monetary policy and so far the Fed has shown great resolve in fighting inflation. So far it has been a non-issue.




All investments have risk. CD's and money markets face interest rate risk. Anyone who is not diversified is asking to take a bath if they are to concentrated in one area.

The problem with your statement is that lower interest rates may hurt savers and senior citizens but it also helps borrowers. Seniors may be able to refinance their home and get a lower rate. The can also buy cars and other items with lower long term interest rates. For those that rely on the government for income and medical care I would think that it would be good to keep the rate of interest on servicing the debt low so it does not take away from other programs.



It has to do with the policies of those states....particularly education. Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, etc have historically had bad schools.



They are able to have less taxes because most red states get far more back from Washington than they send. If Oklahoma got back the same percentage as Delaware Oklahoma's budget deficit would soar. BTW do you know that almost a quarter of the folks in Oklahoma work for the government?



Actually it is the other way around. Their taxes are bailing out your state. They are the ones who should be pissed.




Again other than Greece and Portugal this is a banking crisis caused as a result of a real estate bubble. We are nowhere near the level of government support that exists in Europe.


Do you really believe the government issued statisitcs on inflation? Hell they don't even include energy and food prices. How about college tuition? And again I refer you to this article regarding deficit spending, inflation and the effects on the poor:
http://www.civitasreview.com/budget-taxes/massive-deficit-spending-to-hurt-nations-poor/

I agree that interest rates encourage borrowing. Is that really somethig this country needs....extra personal debt to go on top of the government debt? Is that how you really build prosperity?

I was not talking about the return on federal dollars. I am talking about individual state budgets and which states have spent too much on social programs and state employee benefits. Even if those states got back everything they sent to the federal government dollar for dollar they would still be facing huge budget deficits because they spend too much money.

And Europe is not just about a banking crisis. It is about the elevel of debt carries on the books by these countries and their inability to continue paying for social programs. And if you want to know how bad it really is in Europe you should Google " external debt v. GDP". It isn't a pretty picture even for the European countries that everybody feels are economically successful.

[FaninAma]

It probably has more to do with a sudden contraction of their revenue base. This is especially true in states hit hard by the housing crash which relied on property taxes.

--yet one more reason a state income tax beats the hell out of high property taxes.


Texas and Florida have no income tax and relies heavily on property taxes yet they don't find themselves in debt like the blue states do.

The simple fact is that the blue states have spent too much on state employee benfits and pensions as well as state funded entitlement programs.

[FaninAma]

Or could it be that red states receive more tax dollars than they contribute?

Disclaimer: the data is from 2005, a few less red states now
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/

Also here's a link to education attainment by state, yes its wikipedia but its in a much more readable format than the US Census Bureau's website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment#cite _note-2009C-0

Lot of red states and California at the bottom


FYI for those still banging on the welfare queen myth, TANF recipients are lower than they were for all but two of the Bush years.

Let's see how CURRENT high school graduation rates stack up.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/graduation-rates-by-state-and-race/

How about that. Oklahoma has a higher graduation rate than those highly intelligent blue states of NY, Michigan, California, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada and Washington. Who would of thunk it? LOL. BTW, it is intersting that Nevada's graduation rate is around 50%. That explains a lot about how Harry Reid keeps getting elected.

And again, the discussion was about what states are spending individually on social programs. What they get back in block grants is enterd into the budget and then the state is responsible for making up the rest. Are you claiming the few cents on the dollar that some blue states don't get back is the reason they are billions and billions in the hole OR are you saying the state legislatures in those blue states are just too stupid to be able to figure out how to create a budget that can survive a downturn in the economy?

The bottom line is it doesn't matter whether you think social spending is worth the money(which it isn't). WE ARE FREAKING BROKE! It is not a social or moral issue. It is an economic issue. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Midtowner]

Texas and Florida have no income tax and relies heavily on property taxes yet they don't find themselves in debt like the blue states do.

The simple fact is that the blue states have spent too much on state employee benfits and pensions as well as state funded entitlement programs.

Texas wasn't hit by the housing collapse nearly as bad as other states. Florida is facing a $2 billion shortfall.

[OU_Sooners75]

I'd rather they just declare bankruptcy.

That said, if you're in Oklahoma, your state receives more federal dollars than it receives, so I wouldn't brag too loudly about your self sufficiency.

So you're saying Oklahoma receives more than it receives? Gotcha!!!

[KABOOKIE]

I'd rather they just declare bankruptcy.

That said, if you're in Oklahoma, your state receives more federal dollars than it receives, so I wouldn't brag too loudly about your self sufficiency.


I assume you mean states like Oklahoma receive more in federal funding that they contibute to the system? Because I hear democrats trout this little bit of statistically fraud all the time. Not surprised a lawyer would fall for it.

The large majority of federal revenue comes from industry/business and states like California have 1000 times more industry than Oklahoma. It would be like Oklahoma contributed $1 and got back from the gov't $1.02 while California contributed $1000 and got back $999.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Is it true that all Lib's have huge vaginas with lots of sand in them?

[OU_Sooners75]

Is it true that all Lib's have huge vaginas with lots of sand in them?


I don't think the sand is the problem, I think it's the sand stones located there.

[FaninAma]

Texas wasn't hit by the housing collapse nearly as bad as other states. Florida is facing a $2 billion shortfall.

I bet New York, Illinois and California would trade places with them in a heartbeat.

[Midtowner]

Texas and Florida have no income tax and relies heavily on property taxes yet they don't find themselves in debt like the blue states do.

The simple fact is that the blue states have spent too much on state employee benfits and pensions as well as state funded entitlement programs.

Texas is facing a $27 billion dollar shortfall in large part, a result of relying so much on property taxes. Florida has similar woes. Both were really helped in 2009 with stimulus money.

[Midtowner]

I bet New York, Illinois and California would trade places with them in a heartbeat.

They're all doing pretty badly. The citizens expect more services than they're willing to pay for. This is true whether you're in Texas, Oklahoma or California.

[SoonerorLater]

They're all doing pretty badly. The citizens expect more services than they're willing to pay for. This is true whether you're in Texas, Oklahoma or California.

Yep, thus all of the unpayable debt at every level of government.

[soonercruiser]

It is apparent that history is not a subject that receives a lot of attention in this country.

It is also apparent we have a large segment of our society that has always made decisions based on emotion.

History!!???
I believe that the pubic schools have been waiting for the WH to rewrite the history books so Obama's name shows up in each page....no matter what century.
:anonymous: