Yes. Let us know when you know for sure. Why not? The statement was made that democrats are buying votes by giving free stuff to poor people. That is hard to argue when areas with the large numbers of poor people are NOT electing democrats. It suggests that many poor people are voting republican. Which indicates that indigent benefits are not buying votes for democrats. So what? How unfortunate for you. It's impossible to make a point if you admit that you don't know what you are talking about. Yes.
I wasn't trying to win anything but based on my post-history, I understand you would respond like that. I was honestly throwing something up like I would if were were having coffee or speaking casually in person. But it's really NOT large numbers percentage-wise. Just pulling a few red states, Louisiana's food stamp participation is 19% - as is Alabama's. Texas' is 15%. Florida's at 16%.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as making a will and many benefits have not been eligible to be passed down to same-sex spouses. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. if you don't agree with same-sex marriage, that's ok. You still have the option to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's just that you shouldn't get a say in who someone else weds.
I have read this twice. You have managed to string together about 500 words that mean absolutely nothing. Congrats.
They are a bit higher than that and among the highest in the nation. The point is that the states with the highest food stamp percentage of the population are not electing democrats, thus the notion that food stamps buy votes is not apparent.
This debate seems off in terms of wealth. I don't see it as one party buys the poor vote and another buys the rich vote. The rich are adapt at hedging their bets. Corporations are keen on the knowledge that despite who they would prefer, the other party might win. They make sure the money is dispersed. They don't want to be on the loosing side. There are many rich people who see that some money distribution helps wealth in other ways. There is credence to the fact that as the market gains new highs, income in the middle class is not increasing. Market growth does not necessarily mean income growth for all. The poor know that whoever wins or loses, they are still going to get benefits. Republicans don't say "We are going to take your benefits away" despite what the Democrats say. Cutting the growth is not taking away in my opinion. My kids get SS benefits. Do I want that taken away? No. I don't think that the Republicans are out to do so. It is not income that determines votes. It is much more ideology. It is ok to be a rich democrat as well as a poor republican. Southern states have more conservative values and may vote republican. East coast and west coast are more liberal and vote democrat across the wealth scale. Right now, the countries values are being stretched and tested. As @Tiger in NC , @red55 , and @MLUTiger suggest, it may well be the conservatives who fall behind and it will have nothing to do with money.
On a related note, the dialogue suggesting that Republicans are the party of the rich has to stop. Democrats and lawmakers in wealthy districts are really the nouveaux rich and have just become better at obscuring that fact. CA is a lib/Dem state....just check how many times Obama has been out to SoCal for fundraising. What ever happened to Dixiecrats?
Former New York City mayor and multi billionaire Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat who switched his party affiliation to Republican to run for mayor. He is the most liberal Republican I have ever heard of.
It will stop when the dialogue that democrats buy votes with food stamps stop. How about calling the GOP the party that advocates policies that favor the rich? It's hard to argue with that.
