Poll: Women boost Obama over Romney in swing states

[Rich_Olszewski]

Can you read the posted article from the New York Times?

No, I can’t… I’m semi-illiterate.

Wages were higher and college gaduates had 90% placement. If you were a college graduate in 2011 I’m sure the Bush years do look like the “Golden Years”.

That’s hard to believe. Placement across the board or only in some fields? Where did you read that? Anecdotally, my own wages (I’m a state employee) are higher now than during any year of Bush II’s presidency.

 

[SamH]

No, I can’t… I’m semi-illiterate.

That’s hard to believe. Placement across the board or only in some fields? Where did you read that? Anecdotally, my own wages (I’m a state employee) are higher now than during any year of Bush II’s presidency.

Being semi illiterate is going to prevent you from reading lots of information.

I’m not surprised a state employee is making more while the private sector jobs are paying less.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No, I can’t… I’m semi-illiterate.

That’s hard to believe. Placement across the board or only in some fields? Where did you read that? Anecdotally, my own wages (I’m a state employee) are higher now than during any year of Bush II’s presidency.

A semi-illiterate lawyer? That is WAY to tempting. I’m just gonna leave it alone.

 

[ishii]

Must be. The conservatives I know are generally the wealthy.

Well, the conservatives I know (and I know quite a few) are not that wealthy, or middle class. So I don’t know where that leaves us, Rich. Both of our comments are anecdotal but equally valid, it would seem. The only thing is I might know more conservatives than you, possibly.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Must be. The conservatives I know are generally the wealthy.

Well the people who you know don’t speak for the majority.

It is a myth that nearly all conservatives are rich and it is a myth that the Republican party is the party of the rich.

Wealthy Individuals Voted for Obama: CNN reported about election 2008: “High income voters — those who said they make at least $100,000 a year –went in Obama’s favor, 52 percent to 47 percent.”

Wealthy Counties Voted for Obama: American’s richest county, Loudoun County, Va., voted Obama 54-46, thus being more Democratic than the rest of Va. and the nation (which were both 53% Obama). Fairfax, Va., the nation’s second-wealthiest county, voted 60% Obama.

Wealthy States Voted for Obama: The three wealthiest states — Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey, all voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/08/democrats-party-rich/130805#ixzz1oZXy8dOV

• Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.
  
  In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.
  
  He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
  
  “If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,” Mr. Franc said.
  
  A key measure of each district’s wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.
  
  But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.
  
  Mr. Franc’s study also showed that contrary to the Democrats’ tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts.”
  
  “I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district,” Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

liveleak.com/view?i=711_1195846131

According to labor statistics, in “blue” states with a majority of Democrats, the average income is $100,000. While in “red” states with a majority of Republicans, the average income is $30,000. The biggest supporter of the Democrat Party, George Soros, is a billionaire. The other major supporters are Hollywood elites.

nbra.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-The%20Democrat%20PartyThe%20Party%20of%20the%20Rich

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.
“Democrats have made enormous gains in affluent, educated suburban districts,” says Warren Glimpse, founder of Proximity, a firm that analyzes demographics. “What’s not clear is whether this reflects a profound change or a temporary blip.”

usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm

GOP as ‘party of rich’ is biggest lie in politics

The biggest lie in American politics is that the Republican Party is the party of the rich or wealthy.

In fact, the Atlantic Magazine, a year after the 2000 election, had an article comparing red and blue America. It said Montgomery County, Md., one of the wealthiest counties, voted 68 percent for Al Gore, while Franklin County, Pa., one of the poorest counties, voted 68 percent for George W. Bush.

The article said in Franklin County, the Cracker Barrel was the most expensive restaurant and the death of Dale Earnhardt was a big event, while in Montgomery County, most people did not even know who Dale Earnhardt was.

Similarly, Thomas Frank, a liberal political scientist, wrote a book called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” in which he expressed his amazement that the poorest county in the United States in the center of Kansas had voted 80 percent for Mr. Bush.

All over the country, Republicans lose the superwealthy areas 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.

washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/19/gop-as-party-of-rich-is-biggest-lie-in-politics/?page=all

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Well the people who you know don’t speak for the majority.

Maybe so, but where did I say that they did?

It is a myth that nearly all conservatives are rich and it is a myth that the Republican party is the party of the rich.

Are you claiming that the GOP is the party of the poor? Apparently I’ve been misinformed.

 

[ringil]

The only problem is doctors are becoming reluctant to accept Medicare coverage and are much more reluctant to accept Medicaid coverage. What good will all this socialized “Health Care Coverge” be if no doctor will see you?

What makes it worse is that people with Medicaid coverage can’t find doctors that will accept their coverage and are many times times denied treatment at “free” clinics because they have health care coverage.

There will always be doctors who seek to serve patients and not just the bottom line. I have no respect for doctors who would limit their service delivery simply to make more money. I hold doctors focussed merely on profit in contempt.

Money is base.

 

[scipio337]

Maybe so, but where did I say that they did?

Are you claiming that the GOP is the party of the poor? Apparently I’ve been misinformed.

It’s a simple issue of “freedom” vs. “fairness”. Republicans (conservatives, at least) believe smaller government, paying down our national debt, reducing taxes and letting people keep more of their own money will benefit all. It isn’t as important if someone makes more (hey, that’s not fair!!!) if those in them middle and bottom are better off than they are today.

Obama has claimed that our poor economy is the fault of “speculators”, “fat cat bankers”, “corporate jet owners” and the like. He believes Americans overall aren’t doing well because a few are doing too well.

In this world, only a powerful (and benificent!) gubbermint can ensure that businesses and individuals “spread the wealth”, rather than keep their money.

See post # 106.

 

[ringil]

It’s a simple issue of “freedom” vs. “fairness”. Republicans (conservatives, at least) believe smaller government, paying down our national debt, reducing taxes and letting people keep more of their own money will benefit all. It isn’t as important if someone makes more (hey, that’s not fair!!!) if those in them middle and bottom are better off than they are today.

Obama has claimed that our poor economy is the fault of “speculators”, “fat cat bankers”, “corporate jet owners” and the like. He believes Americans overall aren’t doing well because a few are doing too well.

In this world, only a powerful (and benificent!) gubbermint can ensure that businesses and individuals “spread the wealth”, rather than keep their money.

See post # 106.

What’s up with this use of “gubbermint?” I know how some folks use this in a derogary term so I am hoping that’s not the case.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It’s a simple issue of “freedom” vs. “fairness”. Republicans (conservatives, at least) believe smaller government, paying down our national debt, reducing taxes and letting people keep more of their own money will benefit all.

And, have they put into place this Goldene Medina?

 

[scipio337]

What’s up with this use of “gubbermint?” I know how some folks use this in a derogary term so I am hoping that’s not the case.

Just a colloquialism.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Just a colloquialism.

I think Ringil didn’t see that you’re from the St. Louis area.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What’s up with this use of “gubbermint?” I know how some folks use this in a derogary term so I am hoping that’s not the case.

I use it as a derogatory terms, because I really have nothing good to say about the “government”.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Maybe so, but where did I say that they did?

Are you claiming that the GOP is the party of the poor? Apparently I’ve been misinformed.

No, that the Republican party is the party of the rich’ is perpetuated by the mainstream media when the data reveals that the Republican Party is made of more people earning middle income, meaning registered voters and congressional politicians, than the Democrat party which is made up of far more people earning $100,000 + a year than the Republican party. You said the conservatives you know are wealthy, they may be, but they don’t speak for the majority of Republicans or conservatives.