predictions for the next 4 years

[Sunstone]

I predict the Rapture will occur. All the Republicans will get sucked up to heaven, the Democrats will be the only ones left, and the earth will be a happy place for a 1000 years, but taxes will increase dramatically.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I predict the Rapture will occur. All the Republicans will get sucked up to heaven, the Democrats will be the only ones left, and the earth will be a happy place for a 1000 years, but taxes will increase dramatically.

LOL - careful with that 1000 year stuff - remember what happened to the Third Reich.

TVOR

 

[jewscout]

I feel strongly that because we refused to back down with Saddam, we showed regimes like Iran's that there will actually be consequances for pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, thus maing war less likely. Like domestic laws, international laws preserve peace only when when we demonstrate we are willing to enforce them.

And yet it doesn't seem to be fasing Iran. Which is why if no one does anything about it Israel might have to step up and take out that reactor like they did in the 1980's with Iraq.

 

[linwood]

And yet it doesn't seem to be fasing Iran. Which is why if no one does anything about it Israel might have to step up and take out that reactor like they did in the 1980's with Iraq.

And they might.

A news post a few weeks ago said isreal just purchased 500 bunker busting bombs from the US.
What do they need those for?

I don`t think Iran is afraid right now.
We`ve destroyed their greatest enemy for them , allowed them to infiltrate Iraq, and overloaded our own military right now so we would have a hard time attacking Iran if they launched an ICBM at our homeland.

I think Iran is holding the cards.
Isreal might be able to call their bluff but we sure as hell can`t.

 

[maggie2]

Four more years of Bush thinking he's sent by God and Cheney running him. Four more years of Bush refusing to listen to anyone and NEVER making a mistake. Four more years of chaos. Four more years of gay bashing. Four more years of huge deficits. Four more years of lies and deceit.

 

[jewscout]

Four more years of Bush thinking he's sent by God and Cheney running him. Four more years of Bush refusing to listen to anyone and NEVER making a mistake. Four more years of chaos. Four more years of gay bashing. Four more years of huge deficits. Four more years of lies and deceit.

I'd argue that Bush does listen to other people, in fact i'd argue that he probably takes most of his cues from Uncle Dick.
And i don't think Bush lied. I mean he's an idiot. Do you really expect the underachiever in the class to read the entire assignment?? No he's not going to. So are we really surprised when he doesn't read the whole briefing on Iraq? He's not a liar, he's just an idiot who had someone read it for him.
We knew he was an idiot in 2000. You can't get mad at him for being what he is.
It's like being mad at Clinton for being a weed smoking fornicator

 

[Ardhanariswar]

ya, but what kind of people? the rich? the wealthy? theres proof that he never actually debated or talked to an average american about his policies.

seriously. tax cuts for the rich? what is he on?!

 

[jewscout]

ya, but what kind of people? the rich? the wealthy? theres proof that he never actually debated or talked to an average american about his policies.

seriously. tax cuts for the rich? what is he on?!

He's doing what is in the interest of his base. Which is what won him this election. He knows who is voting for him and knows how to pander to them.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Jewscout is exactly right! He is quite the lapdog. Then again, isn't that the definition of politics?

TVOR

 

[jewscout]

Jewscout is exactly right! He is quite the lapdog. Then again, isn't that the definition of politics?

TVOR

True but W. plays alot more to his base than his father did in his term in office. And like i said before it paid off in 2004:banghead3

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1) "The rich" are not W's voter base. In fact, states with higher average incomes per person voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

2) How can Bush be "run by Cheney" and "refuse to listen to anyone"? Do they use sign language?

 

[Jaymes]

1) "The rich" are not W's voter base. In fact, states with higher average incomes per person voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

They voted overwhelmingly for the guy who promised to repeal their tax cuts?

Also: Higher average income doesn't mean that people are richer. Just that living expenses are higher. When I went to Maine last summer, the average burger flipping job paid something like $8.50 an hour. People down here would be all over it jobs like that, but up there it's just normal because it costs so much more to live up there.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They voted overwhelmingly for the guy who promised to repeal their tax cuts?

Yep. And states with lower average incomes voted for Bush.

Higher average income doesn't mean that people are richer. Just that living expenses are higher. When I went to Maine last summer, the average burger flipping job paid something like $8.50 an hour. People down here would be all over it jobs like that, but up there it's just normal because it costs so much more to live up there.

I don't see how this is relevant when the taxes in question are federal income taxes.

 

[Bastet]

It'd be nice to see sources on this whole rich/poor voters thing. I don't have time to go looking for more right now, but this source tends to agree with Jensa...

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110604america.htm

"If Bush's voters were more likely to be frequent churchgoers, Kerry's were more likely to be worried about pocketbook issues such as the cost of health care. They [Kerry's voters] make less money and are twice as likely to have lost a job in the past four years. They are less likely to draw a connection between Iraq and the war on terrorism."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Bastet-- This is from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/drill.cfm?table=SA04&lc=30&years=2003,2002&format=htm

Notice the correlation between relative state income and which candidate took that state. Just to give you a general idea--Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia, the states with the three lowest average incomes per person in 2003, gave their electoral votes to Bush. The average income in those states was 23,343, 24,296, and 24,672, respectively. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut strongly supported Kerry--and they have the highest three average incomes in the U.S. (39,408, 40,002, and 43,292, respectively).

 

[Bastet]

Bastet-- This is from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/drill.cfm?table=SA04&lc=30&years=2003,2002&format=htm

Notice the correlation between relative state income and which candidate took that state. Just to give you a general idea--Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia, the states with the three lowest average incomes per person in 2003, gave their electoral votes to Bush. The average income in those states was 23,343, 24,296, and 24,672, respectively. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut strongly supported Kerry--and they have the highest three average incomes in the U.S. (39,408, 40,002, and 43,292, respectively).

Right...so let's look at those particular stats a little more closely.

Three states with lowest average incomes, and the percentage of voters for each candidate:

Mississippi: Bush 60%, Kerry 40% -- 20% margin
Arkansas: Bush 54%, Kerry 45%, [Nader 1%] -- 8% margin
West Virginia: Bush 56%, Kerry 43%, [Nader 1%] -- 12% margin

Three states with highest average incomes, and the percentage of voters for each candidate:

Massachusetts: Kerry 62%, Bush 37% [Badnarik 1%] -- 24% margin
New Jersey: Kerry 53%, Bush 46%, [Nader 1%] -- 6% margin
Connecticut: Kerry 54%, Bush 44%, [Nader 1%] -- 9% margin

Not a very big margin between 4 of those states...

I've crunched the numbers, based on the number of votes for each candidate per state, and the average income of voters in each state, and came up with a couple of interesting numbers.

The average income of Kerry voters per annum is: $31, 844
The average income of Bush voters per annum is: $30, 965

That's a difference of $879. Not such a huge difference after all. $16.90 per week, or, based on a 40 hour working week, 42c per hour. Of course, it's all based on averages, and since every city in every state has its rich and poor areas, and I have yet to see statistics on who voted for who within those areas, these can only be a guide. They still don't tell us who voted for who...rich man or poor man.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/drill.cfm?table=SA04&lc=30&years=2003,2002&format=htm

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not a very big margin between 4 of those states...

Indeed, not a very big margin between most of the states in this election. However, comparing the average income per person of the states that Kerry won and the states that Bush won, we find that states with a higher income voted against--not for--Bush. Thank you for providing the CNN website--a quick glance at both it and the BEA table I provided demonstrate this point clearly.

They still don't tell us who voted for who...rich man or poor man.

You're right--it could be that only the poor people voted in New England, and only the rich people voted in the South and the Midwest. Anything's possible. But I still stand by my statement: "The rich" are not W's voter base.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, if the rich are not W's support base, Mr. Spinkles, could that be because the rich tend to be better educated?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Logically, what we see here is the Fallacy of Distribution (in this case - the fallacy of Division). This logical fallacy basically assumes that what is true of a class (or group) is true of its members. The application in this argument is the assumption that because a state has a lower average income, that all of the voters within the state have a low income. We are then making the further illogical leap that all of these low income voters are voting for a given candidate (by the same percentage as the state was carried). This conclusion is not supported by the premise. Without a breakdown as to how each individual voted correlated to that person's income, we cannot draw any logically sound conclusion.

Two examples:
I'll call this "Spinkles" - A state with low average income (we'll use WV) voted for Bush, therefore, poor people voted for Bush. A state with high average income (we'll use MA) voted for Kerry, therefore rich people voted for Kerry.

I'll call this "Bastet" - A state that has low average income but votes for Bush (overall) does not mean that poor people voted for Bush at all. It is very possible that whatever rich people there are in WV (every state has a certain percentage of rich voters) all voted for Bush. The rest of the population was probably split almost evenly - the poor religious right voting for Bush and the poor people that can think for themselves voting for Kerry. Thus, Bush carries a "lower income state".
I'll save the typing, but you understand the concomitant argument for rich states (I hope).

Reality:
Without clear factual data showing each person's income and how they voted, we can only guess whether the assumption made by Spinkles is correct (poor people vote for Bush) or the assumption made by Bastet - that rich people vote for Bush and that they got just enough help from poor religious people to put him over the top, is correct (if either - there are other possibilities).

In all honesty, I tend to agree with Sunstone's observation - that people with more disposable income (rich people) tend to be better educated, and that they might well have voted predominantly for Kerry. I am biased, but I see this as a positive, not a negative.

I will continue to believe that the single largest block of votes that Bush received came from the religious right, which is comprised of the entire spectrum of income classes (thus removing average income from the equation to a very large degree).

Spinkles states that "the rich are not W's base" and I think that misses the important question. W's base is the religious right, which includes some people that are filthy rich and some that are dirt poor. Whatever the composition of his base, it is a very simple majority. In America, one vote more than the other candidate is all that is required to put someone in an elected office, and, just as in the game of golf, they don't ask "How", they only ask "How Many".

TVOR

 

[retrorich]

I predict the Rapture will occur. All the Republicans will get sucked up to heaven, the Democrats will be the only ones left, and the earth will be a happy place for a 1000 years, but taxes will increase dramatically.

That is hilarious, Sunstone! You have given me my laugh for the day.

:biglaugh:

Frubals to you!