In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 501
Online now 755 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I would like some more pictures of whoever that is in your avatar. Preferably in that sweater. It might help me overcome my depraved lifestyle.
Post as if your wife was sitting on my lap.
I also wanted to note that I went and upvoted every "Roberta" post I found... until I got bored. I want to see more of this.
Michigan, California, New York, and Illinois are all traditionally donor states. Just stop it with your embarrassing argument.
Stop mucking up the issue. I am not talking about earmarks or federal projects like the bridge to nowhere.
I am talking about actual entitlements that go directly to voters. There is a big difference. Big cities have lots of people getting these types of benefits which is why they reliably pull the lever for the dems every election.
Versus the farm subsidies (which are a form of welfare) that go to the rural states?
You clearly are an idiot...stick to your mediocre sports analysis.
You've been wrong (and shown to be wrong) in every post.
And to further prove you wrong, are you aware how those "entitlement" programs actually work???? Basically, the federal government gives block "grants" to states who then disburse them to people. No one in the system receives a check directly from the US Treasury. They come from the state. So when people say that Michigan, NY, and others are DONOR states, that means that they send in more tax revenues than the Federal government gives back to them in ALL forms of assistance.
Keep your government hands off my subsidies!
Here's a full chart from the tax foundation (not exactly a liberal organization) showing which states have traditionally been donor states and which are recipient states. California has been getting .78 for every dollar and falling. Illinois has gotten more than .80 back for every dollar they send just once between 1981 and 2005. New York hasn't seen .90 for every dollar since 1982. Michigan looks like a donor state as well. The real welfare queens are in states like Alabama and Mississippi.
Looks like you have pretty much been owned in this thread already but allow me to pile one even more.
Like many low information Republican voters you cling to the exaggeration that the inner city poor are mooching off your tax dollars and are a huge drain on federal spending. Yet only 10% of all government welfare spending goes to the poor and unemployed nationwide and there are more poor people on government assistance living in rural and suburban areas than in the inner cities. So subtracting them, your beef is with a group of people that receive less than 5% of welfare assistance (2% of the federal budget).
Meanwhile, 53% of all government welfare spending (and 1/3 of ALL federal spending) goes to people over 65 years of age. In the last election they voted Republican by a 58-40 margin.
If anyone is bribing voters with welfare spending it's the Republicans and you need look no further than the Republican's Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare part-D). Written and sponsored by Republicans and signed into law by GWB in an election year, it is probably the most blatant display of vote buying this country has ever seen.
This post was edited by ming 2 years ago
I'm betting somebody won't be making any more posts in this thread...
This post was edited by iCameron 2 years ago
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
Just when it looks like Santorum is gaining traction he makes hard turns on religion and now pre-natal testing and probably scaring some center right GOP voters back to Romney.
Example: First birth control, now prenatal testing? Once again a fact of life for many American women has become a jarring issue in the presidential race
Washington First birth control, now prenatal testing? Once again a fact of life for many American women has become a jarring issue in the presidential race.
Good God...what's next? Eliminate coverage for C-Sections because they're not a "natural" birth?
This is my last try to explain this to you guys. I am pretty much done after this. And just because a few of you lack understanding doesn't mean I have been owned.
look at the vote by income section of the 2006 election
the bottom 40% income earners voted democrat overwhelmingly (exit polling data).
under $15,000 (7%) democrat 67% republican 30%
$15,000-30,000 (12%) democrat 61% Republican 36%
$30,000-50,000 (21%) democrat 56% Republican 43%
I understand that this wasn't a good election for Republicans and that even towards the top end it wasn't overwhelmingly republican but again it wasn't a typical election.
Again the low income people don't pay federal taxes (the bottom 45% of people).
Also the bottom income earners get freebees/ hand outs. Obama has made sure that with the record spending he has done those have gone way up the last 3 years.
It isn't that hard. He has been buying the votes for the 2012 election with taxpayer money. He knows they will turn out. They are already bought and paid for.
The myth that 45% of all earners don't pay federal taxes is spelled out in one of your own links.They pay the payroll tax (your own link says as much), gas tax, Social Security tax, excise taxes, etc just at the federal level. Are you trying to own yourself this much?
They pay no income tax. Yes EVERYONE pays lots of other taxes besides income taxes but that doesn't negate the point. Also you havent addressed the Freebes /handouts.
They get lots of them. For many of them it is a lifestyle and Obama is the savior handing them out.
Posting that many low income earners voted Democrat doesn't make you right.
Your claim that Obama is buying this election by giving out more welfare is just obscenely stupid and factually incorrect. You continually ignore the welfare given to the Midwest in the form of farm subsidies. They vote Republican. You also ignore that many of the places where federal jobs are located are located in overwhelmingly Republican districts. (Ever stop to wonder why that is?) Yet you want to act like an extension of unemployment benefits or changes in food stamp eligibility are buying Obama the White House.
Again stick to your mediocre sports analysis. You're way out of your league here.
To the individual tax payer there is no difference if the dollar he earns but does not keep due to taxation is called "income tax" or "property tax" or "sales tax"....taxation should always be considered in total....talking only about "income tax" is misleading.
Clearly if your point is that the bottom 40% of wage earners are concerned that if the Republicans win the election it will be bad for them economically I think you are likely correct....which ofcourse bodes ill for the Republican party.
On the other hand you have the top 1% which according to FOX News pays for virutally everything....they'll all vote Republican (Except of course Warren Buffet & his secretary)....so the bottom 40% will all vote Democratic, the top 1% will all vote Republican (except Warren).....if we split the rest down the middle Obama will win 70% of the popular vote...(which means nothing).
Perhaps the electorate will elect Romney anyway?
Again, provide evidence that all of those receiving government "freebies" do indeed vote Democrat.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports