Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (852671)	4/27/2015 8:07:04 PM
From: combjelly	2 Recommendations Recommended By gronieel2 tejek Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575784

We have a recording of his words. He claimed those who don't pay income taxes, the 47%, wouldn't vote for him because his message of lower taxes doesn't motivate them. So yeah, that pretty clearly says he feels a large percentage of SSI recipients wouldn't vote for him. The problem stems from their are three distinct groups he is talking about. Those who don't any income tax. That is about 47%. Those who are on some form of public assistance, including SSI and Medicare. Those aren't close to 47%, but ok. And then there are those who wouldn't vote for him. As it turns out, that group is larger than those on public assistance, including SSI and Medicare, plus the couple of percent he felt he could appeal to. And then he conflated all three. Which was wrong in so, so many ways. That was the point and it was totally valid a) that wasn't the point. b) it isn't valid. I guess you want that to have been his point, but it wasn't the one he was trying to make. His point was that Obama had an unfair advantage because of "free stuff". Sniff, sniff. I notice you aren't trying to defend your "half are paying for the other half". Is it true? That depends on what numbers you are using. If you count children, then yes. If you just count adults, not true. Even if you count someone who got temporary assistance during part of the year as being on it the whole time. But, ok. I suppose you can make the case that any number on public assistance greater than zero is too high. Fine. But exaggerating the numbers doesn't make your case stronger. The real numbers are more like 23% of the population are on some type of poverty program. That includes children. For single adults without children, it is temporary. There is no poverty program that a childless person can be on that is permanent. Another 18% are retired adults. Another 2% are disabled. Throw in another few percent on unemployment. Which is also temporary. Note, these figures are not "at any given point in time". This is "if you get any assistance at all in a given calendar year". Unless children are involved, the poverty programs are further limited. SNAP, for example, can only be used for 3 months every 36 months if you don't have children unless your state waives that. Most states don't. Except for the retired, the disabled and those with children, there isn't this vast pool of people dependent on handouts. I suppose you can argue that the retired are leeches, the disabled should suck it up and get a job and families with children should starve in the streets and there should be no safety net at all if there is a slight bobble in your life. But that is going to be a tough sell.