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: 03-03-2009
Sun, 11-11-2012 - 10:26pm
To deenasdad. No, we do not have either the resources or the right to "police the world" . Nor is it necessarily the case that only businesses receiving bailouts have prospered. As for the "liar , flip flipper, and fool" characterizations, look at the gawdawful mess GWB made. ****snorts**** The only stability we got out of that clown was the certainty that he would do/say something arrogant/embarrassing/incomprehensible.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 11-11-2012 - 10:14pm
To Deenasdad on the statement that sequestration was Obama's idea. You might want to do some more research, rather than be forced to explain why 174 House Republicans voted for the Budget Control Act. Is Obama such an influential POTUS that he was able to compel a majority of Republicans in Congress to do his bidding? Just curious......

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 11-10-2012 - 2:47am

I'm afraid we are required to police the world.  Our interests and economy are global.  It would be foolish, and incredibly dangerous, to put so much at risk in the hands of others.  It all falls under the umbrella of national security.

And those multi-billion dollar corporations you're referringn to?  Would that be GE, that pays no taxes and has outsourced thousands of jobs, who's CEO heads Obama's jobs council? Obviously Immelt thinks that's "smart" for GE...but not so good for the country.

We've seen how "dumb" companies fail to prosper...but that's AFTER Obama throws billions of taxpayer dollars at them.  And "smart" companies?  We've seen how they "prosper" over the last 4 years as well...they sit on the sidelines...withold capital...no jobs...no growth.  What makes you think they'll do anything different when Obama is just doing more of the same?  What's that they say about insanity?

With Obama, the last thing this country has is "stability."  Obama has proven himself to be a flip-flopper, a liar and a fool...and he promises an agenda that is more spending...higher taxes...more regulation...more attacks on business...more class warfare.  This is the promise of INstability.  Watch as we go over the fiscal cliff because of Obama's ideology...watch the coming recession...higher unemployment...higher prices...no economic growth...that's the kind of "stabililty" we can do without.

And if you want "good care" then follow the American ethic...get a job and earn the money to pay for it, don't expect others to work to provide it for you.  Pretty simple.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Sat, 11-10-2012 - 1:30am

  No we are not required to police the world.  Cut defense spending.

Yes taxes need to be raised.  Esp for the wealthy.  And the 30 multi-billion dollar corporations that got tax refunds.   Smart business will prosper dumb won't.  Stability is what is needed not boom times we kn ow about boom and bust.  Stability is better.  Health insurance of course!  Now for Dental!  Good care costs money.  Too bad the GOP is so cheap.

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-09-2012 - 11:08pm

Getting rid of the Bush taxcuts would mean that everyone's taxes, including yours, would go up dramatically...on average of $3500 per family.  The tax on investments, again, for you and everyone else, will also go up significantly.  It will likely put the country back in a deep recession, far worse than what we've experienced so far.  Higher unemployment, higher prices and an even worse economy.

And out defense budget is so high because as a super power we're required to provide worldwide security.  Significantly cutting military spending  could prevent us from doing things like keep the Straits of Hormuz open which would be disasterous for oil distribution.

And ending the wars helping cut spending?  Not if Obama has his way.  He's already allocating that money for new spending.

The student debt crisis will be solved when the economy grows and those students can get decent jobs.  Unfortunately, not that Obama's been reelected, they'll have to wait another 4 years.

And you're mistaken, we already had health care for everyone...what's new is health INSURANCE for everyone and you're right, that will be a game changer.  Insurance costs have already gone up around $3500 per family and it's going to go up even more.  People will be forced to buy insurance, wheather they can afford it or not, or made to pay a fine.  Folks depending on Medicare will now find themselves with dramatically fewer doctors and hospitals available to take care of them.  And a LOT of people will find themselves dropped from their employers insurance and dumped on the government rolls.  They'll also find their taxes have increased significantly to pay for Obamacare, which the CBO has estimated will cost three times as much as previously predicted.

With Obama's high-regulation-high-tax policies, manufacaturing will continue to dwindle and other businesses will be encouraged to either outsource or relocate...this will kill millions more jobs and crater the economy.

Unless Obama does a complete 180 on his economic policies, there's no reason to assume that we'd see any significant change in the country over the next 4 years than we've seen in the last 4.  In fact, it's likely to get much, much worse.  Brace yourself, America...the Obamanation has arrived.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Fri, 11-09-2012 - 4:17pm

  Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is a start.  Cutting the defense budget (which is the highest in the world) and ending the wars will do much for cutting spending.  A lot of reform in the defense industry as there is no competition. 

   Finding a way to eliminate the student debt crisis will mean much more money spend on goods and services.  After all this is a consumer economy.  No consumption=no economy.  Health care for everyone will be a game changer for state governments as the billions paid out for emergency room visits for colds etc will fall. 

   High tech manufacturing can be encouraged to return with it good jobs and tax paying citizens.  Who will have disposiable income.  It is the spending of these people that will bring up the economy and the tax revenue for both state and federal government. 

  Big government is here to stay.  Better than the 18th century form that is for sure.

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 11-08-2012 - 8:59pm

Actual the "fiscal cliff" is a liberal concoction.  The sequester was Obama's idea, as is his fixation with the "Bush tax cuts" and his "tax the rich" mentality.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 11-08-2012 - 8:56pm

Take credit?  They'll blame Bush. ; )

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 11-08-2012 - 8:55pm

Apparently you’re comfortable dismissing an article backed by research in favor of your own musings with crayons and color overlays.  ‘Nuff said.  That makes about as much sense as your conclusions making connections with “takers” and “red states.”  Wisconsin is a perfect example…they voted for Obama, but also voted for a Republican State government, re-elected Walker and shot down the unions to boot.  Maybe they like living directly under a fiscally responsible, non-nanny state government while still getting their goodies from Big Mama Obama.  And Hispanics…they are roughly 17% of the population and make up 16% of welfare recipients…not including the millions of illegal immigrants, of course.

 

Btw, the “tea party” didn’t cause anything because the “tea party” doesn’t have any power beyond that of any average citizen.  The debt ceiling and credit rating issues were caused by Democrat spending and their failure to responsibly demonstrate any plans for fiscal restraint...an irresponsible attitude they’re continued to espouse…and Obama has everything in the world to do with it.  Obama’s idea of compromise is “I won and you have to do what I say.”  It’s completely juvenile and has caused a gridlock in government that is unlikely to change unless he grows up and curbs his arrogance.

 

As far as your 80% wanting to raise taxes on the top 5%...not a big surprise that people want someone else to pay.  And maybe that’s because of Obama’s oft repeated lies and class warfare rhetoric.  It’s already been well documented that even taking 100% of the wealth from the top 5% wouldn’t come close to touching the deficit.  It’s a strawman argument to gin up support for just more Democrat tax and spend policies.  Nothing new.  Personally, I hope the Republicans stick to their guns and force Obama to renew the tax cuts (and it’s really pretty stupid to keep calling them that since they’ve been in place for a decade) or throw the entire country over the cliff.  With so many Democrats facing re-election in two years, I don’t think Obama will have much support.

It’s an easy argument for the Republicans…they just have to keep playing Obama telling the country “you don’t raise taxes on anyone in a down economy” the last time he extended the “Bush tax cuts.”  His hypocrisy will take the wind out of his sails and with waning Democrat support he’ll crumble.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Thu, 11-08-2012 - 7:50pm

Phony ideology of the tea party pluse the obstruction in congress killed any chance. 

It appears they like the nanny state...and unless Republicans abandon their core ideology of self-reliance and personal independence, it's unlikely they'll sway many of the "takers."  The best the Republicans can do is to do a better job selling the benefits of that ideology.

   Self reliance= owing the hospital big bucks because the GOP'er can't be responsible enough to buy health insurance.  Were not a nation of "mountian men" We are overpopulated.

  The fiscal cliff was started by the GOP!  Now they will reap the whirlwing of their own making!

 

Goldfish