A few facts and figures for our left wing friends.....

[drz-400]

Yep, worked construction for years while in college, great people, hardly union although many construction workers are and therein lies much of the problems the labor market faces today.

I have no problems with them either. Just saying the majority of you construction grunts are conservative and hate liberals, at least where I come from. Heck, pretty much my entire family either owns their own construction business or is a superintendent. However, my whole family is liberal...of course blue-dog might be the best way to describe them.

Anyways, from my experience education goes opposite of the poll you mentioned, although I live in Colorado, which is predominetly a red state, so it is probobly much different back east.

 

[Conservative]

when you make such a statement, the burden is on you to provide the proof...not on me to prove your point for you.

I have posted that proof but you ignored it. I gave you the link in another thread to the IRS site showing who pays the taxes in this country. That is what you do, then you troll.

 

[randel]

I have posted that proof but you ignored it. I gave you the link in another thread to the IRS site showing who pays the taxes in this country. That is what you do, then you troll.

have a good day conservative, and i will leave it up to the mods to decide if i'm trolling, as to my knowledge, you are not a mod, and don't have the power to make that determination.

 

[Conservative]

I have no problems with them either. Just saying the majority of you construction grunts are conservative and hate liberals, at least where I come from. Heck, pretty much my entire family either owns their own construction business or is a superintendent. However, my whole family is liberal...of course blue-dog might be the best way to describe them.

Anyways, from my experience education goes opposite of the poll you mentioned, although I live in Colorado, which is predominetly a red state, so it is probobly much different back east.

My question is why do you continue to support a failed ideology that has a trail of failure throughout history? It is one thing to believe in spending in the name of compassion but another to actually get compassionate results meaning actually solving a social problem and then going away. I don't get it. I was a Democrat for decades but grew up and saw what the Democrat Party had become. We have a 3.8 trillion dollar budget and 13.4 trillion dollar debt today because of liberal social engineering and trying to be a parent for all.

 

[pbrauer]

No I don't have proof, why is it you always want proof except when it comes to liberal programs and claims. Who do you think makes up the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes? I am sure you want proof of the 47% too, right. Go to the IRS website and find out what percentage don't pay taxes. You can go to the U.S.Census to find out actually pays the taxes.

Why do you constantly bitch about the 47%, it was your hero President Bush who was responsible for taking millions of low wage earners off the tax roles. When Bush was still President conservatives applauded this fact, now that Obama is our President conservatives continue to whine and bitch and bitch.

 

[Conservative]

Why do you constantly bitch about the 47%, it was your hero President Bush who was responsible for taking millions of low wage earners off the tax roles. When Bush was still President conservatives applauded this fact, now that Obama is our President conservatives continue to whine and bitch and bitch.

Who is bitching, just putting it into context. You seem worried about the tax revenue to the govt. not me and as I pointed out if you are truly worried about that revenue then you would focus more on the 47% that pay nothing in Federal Income taxes vs. attacking the 2% that are considered rich and pay a greater share of the taxes now.

 

[haymarket]

Conservative
Your post comes off as the classic "why tax the rich when there are so many more poor people we can tax."
I think Willie Sutton said something which answers that.

 

[Conservative]

Conservative
Your post comes off as the classic "why tax the rich when there are so many more poor people we can tax."
I think Willie Sutton said something which answers that.

Unlike the liberal attitude of let's tax the rich to pay for the poor. Apparently you don't recognize how much of our taxdollars are wasted. It seems you and others are more concerned about how much revenue goes to the govt. vs. how it is spent and wasted. Why don't you ask yourself where the results are for all that social spending that was supposed to solve the poverty, drug, and other social problems? How much money was thrown at the Great Society program.

All I see here is class envy and total lack of understanding of how our govt. works. If you truly cared about solving problems and the debt you would attack spending and waste instead of worring about how much money is collected in tax revenue.

 

[RightinNYC]

just taking a quick look at those numbers, there isnt that much difference between republicans and democrats.

do you have proof that none of them pay taxes?? otherwise, you are labeling an entire group of people who don't care for your ideology.

73% of people making under $15k voted for the dem in 2008, as did 63% of high school dropouts.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

The poorest and least educated overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

 

[winston53660]

73% of people making under $15k voted for the dem in 2008, as did 63% of high school dropouts.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

The poorest and least educated overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Why not post the ones McCain won or would that demolish your innuendo?

 

[RightinNYC]

Why not post the ones McCain won or would that demolish your innuendo?

I honestly don't know what you're getting at, as nothing about my post involved innuendo. I stated it quite clearly - the poorest and least educated overwhelmingly voted Democrat. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the rest of the party, but it's a fact.

If you think there's something I'm trying to hide, by all means, point it out.

 

[winston53660]

I honestly don't know what you're getting at, as nothing about my post involved innuendo. I stated it quite clearly - the poorest and least educated overwhelmingly voted Democrat. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the rest of the party, but it's a fact.

If you think there's something I'm trying to hide, by all means, point it out.

The richest and most educated also voted for Obama.

 

[GodsWrath]

NP...should't you be on the the Atlantic Ocean right now?

 

[RightinNYC]

The richest and most educated also voted for Obama.

The richest voted for Obama in the same proportion as the general public. "Postgrads" did disproportionately vote for Obama by a few points.

True as that may be, neither of those facts has anything to do with my point, as I was responding to a discussion about how the poorest/least educated voted.

 

[Hatuey]

73% of people making under $15k voted for the dem in 2008, as did 63% of high school dropouts.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

The poorest and least educated overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

So do the richest...

The conservatives tend to rely on evidence at the state level. Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation recently wrote that "Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats."

This view squares with maps drawn after the 2004 election showing a remarkable correlation between states that have above-average median household incomes and states that voted Democratic. Minnesota, of course, fits the pattern: above average household income, blue state.

And the middle class..

Among voters earning less than $100,000 (78 percent of voters), 55 percent said they voted Democratic, 43 percent Republican. Among those earning $100,000 or more, 47 percent voted Democratic and 52 percent Republican.

And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently true since 1972, Krugman wrote.

The one thing both sides seem to agree on is this: being the party of the rich is a bad thing, something you try to pin on your opponents.

Actually, both sides' arguments are correct. But how could this be? If the rich tend to vote Republican, why do the rich states vote Democratic? It seems like a contradiction.

Heritage Foundation Study Finds Democrats Represent More Wealthy Districts Than Republicans - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

A review of Internal Revenue Service data conducted by Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at Heritage — a conservative think-tank — found that Democrats control the majority of the country's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions, and that more than half of the most affluent households are located in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

Click here to read the article.

The review of income data also found that some of the Democratic Party's key leaders represent far more affluent constituents than their GOP counterparts.

Just sayin'.

 

[RightinNYC]

So do the richest...

And the middle class..

Heritage Foundation Study Finds Democrats Represent More Wealthy Districts Than Republicans - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Just sayin'.

Rather than using imprecise stats (how on earth is wealth of a congressional district relevant?), why not use the actual hard data from the link I just provided?

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

The general public voted 53-46 for Obama

Under $15k voted 73-26 - drastically disproportionate for Obama
Under $50k voted 60-38 - substantially disproportionate for Obama
$50k-$100k voted 49-49 - somewhat disproportionate for McCain
Over $100k voted 49-49 - somewhat disproportionate for McCain
Over $200k voted 53-46 - even