Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said birth control, not birth control pills. Condoms are essential for preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted infections, but, as a woman, I would never rely solely on condoms for pregnancy prevention.
Yeah, but you mentioned birth control for women of childbearing age, inferring you mean hormonal BC. If you want to screw up your body and become emotionally unstable, that's on you, but don't insist on using other people's money to do it.
Meanwhile, condoms are a cheap alternative, men just need to stop being whiny babies and wear them. And in the case that they do fail, Plan B is easy to get at the pharmacy (not cheap no, but cheaper than years on the pill).
Women should agree to have tubal ligation as condition of receiving welfare. If they refuse, they must have a DepoProvera shot every month as a condition of receiving that month's money.
That's the same one you posted before...? It says:
Only 18% of adults said they had ever used food stamps.
Of the 18% - 22% listed themselves as democrats. At the time, 35% of the electorate were democrats.
Continue the thought. Only 10% listed themselves as Republicans, out of HOW many respondents who were Republicans at the time? Oh, yeah... 25%.
So, we have... Dems: 22%/35% to Republicans 10%/25% = Dems: 0.63 to Republicans 0.4. IOW, Dem voters are leeches by a rate of 1.8 to 1 compared to Republicans.
Continue the thought. Only 10% listed themselves as Republicans, out of HOW many respondents who were Republicans at the time? Oh, yeah... 25%.
So, we have... Dems: 22%/35% to Republicans 10%/25% = Dems: 0.63 to Republicans 0.4. IOW, Dem voters are leeches by a rate of 1.8 to 1 compared to Republicans.
I'm not following this micro-analysis in any detail but the gist I'm guessing is that the bad, bad dems are grabbing welfare at a much higher rate than the good, good, 'pubs.
What's unfortunate is that we don't also examine the rate of CORPORATE welfare....I wonder, might we find more 'pubs partaking of THAT brand of welfare?
The government "helps" a lot of people in a lot of ways - it is disingenuous to only count one side of it and declare "victory".
I'm not following this micro-analysis in any detail but the gist I'm guessing is that the bad, bad dems are grabbing welfare at a much higher rate than the good, good, 'pubs.
Subjective adjectives aside, yes. Dems collect welfare (public assistance) benefits at about twice the rate that Republicans do.
Quote:
What's unfortunate is that we don't also examine the rate of CORPORATE welfare....I wonder, might we find more 'pubs partaking of THAT brand of welfare?
There actually is no such thing as "corporate welfare." Keeping more of what you earn isn't welfare. Getting additional publicly-funded benefits BEYOND what you earn is welfare.
Yeah, but you mentioned birth control for women of childbearing age, inferring you mean hormonal BC. If you want to screw up your body and become emotionally unstable, that's on you, but don't insist on using other people's money to do it.
Meanwhile, condoms are a cheap alternative, men just need to stop being whiny babies and wear them. And in the case that they do fail, Plan B is easy to get at the pharmacy (not cheap no, but cheaper than years on the pill).
I did not imply anything of the sort. Prescription contraception for women can be either hormonal like the pill or non-hormonal like the diaphragm. Condoms are cheap and widely-available but their proper use is out of a woman's hands. And as I wrote earlier, I would be absolutely fine with a contraceptive coverage mandate that included condoms, too. I think...actually, I know...that the best way to prevent negative consequences of sexual activity is to use a condom and another birth control method, one controlled by the male participant and the other controlled by the female participant.
Continue the thought. Only 10% listed themselves as Republicans, out of HOW many respondents who were Republicans at the time? Oh, yeah... 25%.
So, we have... Dems: 22%/35% to Republicans 10%/25% = Dems: 0.63 to Republicans 0.4. IOW, Dem voters are leeches by a rate of 1.8 to 1 compared to Republicans.
But that only applies 18% of the people polled? And half of them don't have a party afiliation in the survey?
So what you are sayng is that:
82% of the population has never recieved food stamps
9% have but are not registered with any party
9% have and are registered with a party - and of those they skew proportunately more democrat that the general popualtion.
In order to prove that food stamp recieving "leeches" have a big impact on the electroate you'de have to show they voting so much more for democrats that they can significantly impact the broader voting population. But it looks like they are not a large percentage of the population, and don't skew democrat so much that they can overpower the other 82%.
You are trying to isolate the voting patterns in this cohort from the voting patterns of the electorate as a whole, but that's to how impact works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
I'm not following this micro-analysis in any detail but the gist I'm guessing is that the bad, bad dems are grabbing welfare at a much higher rate than the good, good, 'pubs.
Well not "welfare" in that case, she's only using food stamp recipients. But they are the biggest group outside healthcare and social security so I guess that counts. But you know, the definition of "leeches" always flows in these things depending on what statistics work in your favor LOL
If you just go by welfare, Section 8 and food stamps you never get a huge number because the majority people in the overall population don't use the services and many of those who do use them don't vote. To get bigger numbers, people will count any kind of public money (free lunch, social security, medicare, medicate, SSS) which gets way messier.
Subjective adjectives aside, yes. Dems collect welfare (public assistance) benefits at about twice the rate that Republicans do.
There actually is no such thing as "corporate welfare." Keeping more of what you earn isn't welfare. Getting additional publicly-funded benefits BEYOND what you earn is welfare.
I disagree - semantics. In a modern society very few people get to keep everything they earn and business is no different (businesses ARE people, now!). Some get a great many perks carved out for their special circumstances.
I disagree - semantics. In a modern society very few people get to keep everything they earn and business is no different (businesses ARE people, now!). Some get a great many perks carved out for their special circumstances.
And that is overwhelmingly the lower-income earners. Again, look at the chart:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
