Demographics

Avatar for songwright
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-28-1997
Demographics
33
Thu, 11-08-2012 - 12:05pm

Ah, the hand-wringing and finger-pointing has begun. According to Bill O'Reilly, the dip in voter participation by White People from 74% in 2008 to a measly 72% in 2012 is proof that us White Folks have become a "Minority" in the United States. He went on to say that the election results mean that 50% of Americans voted for President Obama because they want 'stuff' that Obama has promised to 'give' them. (I wonder if he was present at the Romney fund raiser where the infamous 47% quote originated?) And that jump in registered Hispanics from 9% of voters to a whopping 10% of voters is surely behind this wholesale disenfranchisement of "traditional" (O'Reilly's word) Americans.

What makes this assertion that Americans are voting so that the government will give them more 'stuff'' just plain silly are the actual demographics of our country. The Electoral maps of the last few elections have a certain recognizable shape of Red and Blue areas. And there is no real correlation between the the relative percentage of 'people of color' in a state and it's tendency to Vote Red or Blue. But there are some other correlations, if you do some simple map overlays.

Try overlaying this map of national poverty levels by County with the national Red/Blue electoral map (darker areas are higher poverty areas): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:US_Poverty_Rates.svg&page=1 (For a more in-depth view of povery in the US, check out this map that breaks down Poverty, Child Poverty, and Extreme Poverty by state): http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/poverty_data_map.aspx )

Now overlay the US Census map of percent of State populations with High School or higher Education levels (Lighter areas have a higher percentage of HS and college-educated citizens): http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf

These demographic correlations are clear. The Blue states have generally higher educated populations, and they also have generally lower percentages of people living in poverty (that's not really surprising). The Red states have a relatively lower general education level of their population, accompanied by higher poverty rates. So, how does this compare with Bill O'Reilly's assertion that the 51% of Americans who voted for President Obama were 'takers' who want to keep their supply train of 'stuff'' from Big Government running? It's simply False. The percentage of people in the Red states who are dependent on getting 'stuff' from the government - like Welfare, and Food Stamps, and Housing Assistance, and Medicaid - is higher than it is in the Blue States.

This is the dirty little secret of the GOP 'base'. The Conservative GOP Harvard-educated capitalist thinkers, who are attempting to guide the United States towards an Ayn Randian vision of an Economic Darwinism Utopia, are dependent on large numbers of poorly educated (Evolution & Global Warming are Hoaxes, women's bodies can 'shut down' pregnancies when they're raped ... ), superstitious (Creationists, the earth is 10,000 years old, 'rape' babies are a 'Gift fom God' ... ) citizens, that are more likely to be recipients of government handouts than their Blue state counterparts.

States with lower numbers of those types of individuals, largely voted to re-elect the President. NOT because they are disproportionate recipients of 'stuff' from the government, BUT because they believe that their fellow citizens - PARTICULARLY the CHILDREN - deserve to have full bellies, and roofs over their heads, and don't deserve to be turned away at the doors of the Hospital, even though they are in dire economic situations. They believe that the children of immigrants deserve a chance to succeed in a country that has a long history as a 'melting pot'.  And they also believe that those who benefit the most from our society have a responsiblity to commensurately bear the costs of keeping it strong and healthy. IMHO, it is in our belief in equity, and compassion, and understanding, that we show the true Greatness of our democratic society and what it stands for -- not in our GDP, or our big-threatening-military, or the number of Billionaires our economy produces.

That's Songwright's View

~ SW

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 11-14-2012 - 12:36am

Of course policing the world is possible…we do it.  And of course it’s in our best interest, who else is going to protect our national interests?  Who else is going to defend our weaker allies?  Who else is going to keep the world’s “bad actors” in check?  Yes, “Georgia and the enclaves” have had an antagonistic relationship for years, but what keeps them in check is international oversight, led by the US.  Without the US as a check, the bullies of the world would run wild.

And yes, the military budget is filled with pork, but then so is every other budget…not to mention being filled with fraud…and waste, etc.  And?  If you’re suggesting that pork, fraud and waste should be eliminated from the US budget then you get my vote.  Call your Congressman.  But you’re entirely mistaken concerning our weapon platforms.  On one hand you claim they’re old, but then you decry spending to update them.  The F-35 is a multirole fighter that replaces a number of older models.  It’s also being funded by a number of other countries as well as the US, so apparently there are a lot of military experts who disagree with your assessment.  And far from bankrupting ourselves, it’s the military that enables this country to prosper.

 

And of course corporations are interested in profits.  Why else would someone invest their time and money if not to make a profit?  And who would hire employees if they didn’t need them?  Do you work for free?  Do you invest your money trying NOT to make a profit?  It’s incredulous that liberals have a world view where everything is supposed to be a handout…except when it come to parting with their own money, of course.

As far as health INSURANCE is concerned, if you can’t afford insurance then who’s fault is that?  Why should someone else have to pay for your insurance?  Where is your notion of “the great American advantage; being able to fail?”  Why do liberals think that only applies to people who work hard and provide for themselves?  Why aren’t liberals willing to be “adroit” and learn from their failure, instead of expecting everyone else to pick up the pieces and provide for them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 11-14-2012 - 1:16am

It’s not a guess or speculation, the sequester idea came from the White House.  So “just for grins,” let’s admit that Obama is a big fat liar and, once again, he’s been caught.

http://www.gop.com/news/research/obama-fact-checked-on-his-debate-sequestration-claims/

And no, such an irresponsible concept is anything but “presidential”…but not a surprise from a go-golfing-President who’s anything but presidential.  Trying to get Congress to move past it’s partisan squabbling and fixation on ideological purity is a fine idea…it requires compromise and leadership…qualities sadly lacking in Obama.  Instead, he proposed putting a ticking bomb in the middle of the US economy to motivate the super committee…and then told the Democrats not to compromise…playing chicken with the American people as the potential victims.  A game he’s still playing today.  Very presidential indeed.

 

Btw, while Obama was re-elected with a large electoral college margin, he got considerably less votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 and only got roughly 2M more votes than Romney…hardly “definitive” and nothing close to Obama’s proclamation of a mandate.  And yes, I do blame Obama for the continued intransigence.  One only has to listen to his post-election diatribes to here that his idea of compromise is to do what he says.  Look for Obama to drive the country off the fiscal cliff on Jan 1.  Ideology over country.  Very presidential.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 11-14-2012 - 2:14am

Jabberwocka, my stance has been consistent…reduce the debt.  I don’t necessarily support increasing military spending, but I also don’t necessarily believe that drastic cuts can be made.  In my opinion, there is a lot wrong with the way the military handles expenditures…allocations, cost overruns, missed deadlines, etc.  There’s also the political allocation culture of “use it or lose it” with funding.  I think that entire process should be revamped.  I also believe that there is a lot of waste and fraud and unnecessary spending in the military budget.  My solution would be to form a combined civilian/military committee and go through the Pentagon budget line by line to review expenditures and carve out waste.  In the end, I think we need a lean, effective fighting force that maintains the “two-front” defense philosophy and meets the needs of our national security…whatever that cost may be.

 

And again, I disagree with your position on “world policing.”  The US has global interests and global alliances that need security…and it’s in our interest, and those of our allies, to secure those interests and promote the US economy and American values across the world.

Your comparison with the US and historical “empires” is equally flawed.  First, not all “empires” have fallen.  Britain is doing just fine, thank you…and while there are a number of reasons why specific empires have failed, almost none have to do with “over extending themselves.”  But perhaps the most salient point is that the US is not an empire.  It’s a republic that does not use it’s military might to dominate other nations.  If we “fail” it will have to come from within…welcome to the Obamanation.

 

I also think it’s appropriate to blame Obama for the problems of “some automotive companies” and his “green energy” failures.  Obama flaunted the law when he took over GM and Chrysler.  It was his ideological interference with GM, Fisker, Tesla, etc that forced them to spend billions on “green” pieces of crap that no one wanted to buy.  It was his ideological interference that caused GM to leave bankruptcy with the same, and even higher, financial burdens that caused their failure in the first place.

And Solyndra?  Obama was warned that Solyndra was a bad bet.  China didn’t suddenly start dumping subsidized panels on the market…it had been doing it for years…and Obama knew.  Obama has hundreds of “experts” advising him with assessments and predictions…but like he did with Simpson Bowles…if reality doesn’t fit his ideology, he simply won’t listen…and the taxpayers bear the burden.  Imagine the jobs or schools that could have benefitted from the billions and billions and billions of dollars that Obama wasted.

 

And companies are “sitting on the sidelines” because of Obama’s anti-business regulations and policies.  You think…hope, actually…energetic start-ups will jump in and “claim shares of the market”…but you’re wrong.  Start-ups can’t get the capital, and for those who can, they’re faced with the same reality as the other companies now on the sidelines…and they’ll join them.  For these companies, it isn’t ideological, and it sure as hell isn’t “patriotic”…it’s business.  And let’s see if DH stops “hiring left and right” at 49…because at 50, Obamacare stomps on his head, and he has to pay for their healthcare.  I wonder if he’ll be a “miser” too?

 

This is getting lengthy.  If you don’t mind, I’ll continue in another post. ; )

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 11-14-2012 - 4:15am

And to the other “green” points you raised…of course solar/wind/geothermal powered vehicles could be far cleaner…but then so could cars powered by wishful thinking and rainbows.  Unfortunately, none of them are practical, or come close to competing with the internal combustion engine.  And a simple little fact that liberals like to either deny or completely ignore, is that the vast majority of their “clean, electric cars” are really powered…by coal.

Another inconvenient truth about your beloved electric cars is the battery.  It’s inversely pragmatic.  The longer it runs, the less efficient it becomes, losing up to 30% of it’s power over it’s lifetime.  And speaking of lifetime, the only last 8-10 years, at which time they have to be replaced…at a cost of around $10K.  Know anyone willing to put 10K into a 10 year old car?  Didn’t think so.  And what happens with those millions and millions of discarded eco-unfriendly batteries?  Hmmm… and that’s only the start of the problems with these “technological wonders.”

 

Btw, with the crap-fest of electric cars out there, it’s not really that difficult to win a “best in class.”  It seems all you have to do is not spontaneously burst into flames.  And to your argument…”it would be more intelligent to consider how the companies you names would have fared if they had not received assistance”…let me just borrow a phrase from our friend Xxxs…”Actually that is the great American advantage; being able to fail.  From failure comes learning and success if one is adroit.”

 

And if you think Bush is going to go down in the annals of history as one of the worst Presidents ever, then it should be no surprise that Obama will actually top the list as the actual worst considering the debt he’s heaped on the country, the damage he’s done to the economy and so many American lives, not to mention his failed foreign policies that caused the deaths of 4 American heroes and subsequent lies that have led to so many scandals.  Embarrassing hardly covers it.

You should also bear in mind that, unlike so many of Obama’s decrees, Bush passed those tax cuts with bi-partisan support…and Obama extended them.  Bush also had strong bi-partisan support (Clinton, Kerry, et al) for the Iraq war…until the immoral Democrats decided it was more politically advantageous to use the war as a bludgeon to hypocritically attack Bush for a war they’d been pressing for years.

You should also recall that Obama called Afghanistan “the good war” and that he doubled down, almost tripling the number of troops, as well as American casualties, all while putting our soldiers in danger by telling the Taliban that he was planning on withdrawing in 2014.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Don't thank our soldiers for their service, just make damn sure that their lives don't get wasted by power-hungry politicians, and profit-craving businessmen like Obama and his Democrat cronies.

 

And while I’m sure that there are a few nanny-staters who have grown fond of food stamps, I’m pretty sure that almost all of the poor and unemployed and people who have left the workforce in the last 4 years would love to return to the heady days of the Bush administration with it’s 4% unemployment and growing economy.  It is, however, quite amusing that you wag your finger at Bush for “spending capital without having any mechanism for replenishing capital” when Obama has spent more than all other Presidents COMBINED and increased our debt by $6 TRILLION…that’s TRILLION…in the last 4 years and is running over a TRILLION…that’s a $TRILLION budget deficit every year.  Since Obama was elected, we’ve lost 2/3 more American lives in 4 years than we did under Bush in 8.  And maybe you missed it, but our “national prestige” was in stark display when anti-American riots broke out across 20 countries and terrorists attacked our embassy and consulate and killed our Ambassador.  Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who basically told us to “shove it” and Iran who’s firing on our drones while building a nuclear bomb to attack Israel, where Obama’s approvals are in the single digits.  You can just wrap yourself in the warmth.

 

And liberals like to point the finger at Bush when it comes to the economic collapse, but they like to pretend that the Democrats had majorities in both the House and the Senate.  I also noticed that you conveniently dodged the question about which Bush policy was directly attributed to the collapse.  That’s ok, I never thought you could answer the question…no liberal can…because it’s a lie.

 

And finally, yes…Obama can speak well…as long as someone is writing his lines for him.  Maybe he would have made a better actor than a politician.  His arrogance and prima donna attitude certainly support that career change…and I’d support anything that would get him away from the reins of power.  And “gravitas?”  Maybe for the perpetually uninformed…unfortunately that “gravitas” belongs to an empty suit.  One that after 4 years of pain and suffering has left the country worse than he found it.  Libya…Pakistan…Afghanistan?  Obama is the very image of a war-mongerer…if you can actually be a “war mongerer” by leading from behind.  Obama is the worst kind of idealist…and idealist without a clue…and now, and idealist with nothing to lose.  Beware…your taxes are going to go up.  Prices are going to go up.  Your health care is going to get worse.  There will be more terrorist attacks.  There will be more scandals.  There will be higher unemployment.  There will be slower economic growth.  The poor will become poorer.  Millions more on foodstamps.  The world will hate you.  This is the Obamanation…the ascendency of the liberal ideology.  Elections have consequences.  Stupidity has consequences.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Wed, 11-14-2012 - 6:13pm

  There is another down side to rushing "electric" vehicles: taxes for roads,etc.  Already this is another problem. 

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/oregon-mileage-tax-state-looks-for-simple-way/article_bc63c23b-9cb6-5ffc-8d4e-0b127c4a90c7.html

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/04/12/1

   One very important problem is the consequences of "bright" ideas that are not properly thought out.  That is the problem when the "big" picture is not understood. 

   IMO it is strange that the food stamp program is being attacked.  Many people who are living on fixed incomes or going through hard times.  Poor nutrition leads to medical problems which the taxpayer also pays for. 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 11-14-2012 - 7:36pm

The problematic solution to the problem is to put a GPS tracker on your car...so the government can know where you are at all times.  In our area, there was already a proposal (thankfully defeated) of having government control of the thermostats in private homes.  Government surveillance is getting spooky.

And the problem conservatives have with the food stamp program, is not giving food to people who need it...it's that so many people appear to need it.  Many milions more since Obama took office...which is evidence that his policies aren't working and are hurting the poor and middle class the most.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Thu, 11-15-2012 - 5:20am

  The F 35 is much like battleship economics.  It real purpose is to provide employment.  It actually is not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination.  It is far inferior to the Sukhoi 35s.

  "And the problem conservatives have with the food stamp program, is not giving food to people who need it..""

 And how is that determined?

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121104/DEFREG02/311040001/The-Next-1-Trillion-Market-F-35-Sustainment-Work

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=963

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 11-15-2012 - 11:47pm

The F-35 is the next gen allied fighter and far superior to the SU-35.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-16-2012 - 10:56pm

This isn't 1914...who needs to dogfight when you can blow your enemy out of the sky before they can even see you?  The F-35 is stealthier and has significantly more sophisticated radar and armament capabilities making it more than a match for any SU out there.  The US and at least a dozen of our allies see the F-35 as the platform of the future.  I doubt they'd be making that assessment if they felt it was substandard.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Fri, 11-16-2012 - 10:58pm

  According to the experts it is far inferior.  It cannot dog fight.  It is a bomb truck.  the Su has far greater maneuverability carries heavier missiles has a very good cannon.  Plus none of the F35 prototypes are even allowed to try the full envelope due to structural failures.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/64364-f-35jsf-vs-su-35s-comparison.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%253a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

http://www.afa.org/professionaldevelopment/issuebriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162245/-The-F-35-Fighter-an-example-of-failure

dragowoman