|
|
On September 20 2012 12:20 3FFA wrote:
Wait, is this now the let's ask questions about our insurance thread? What has this to do with Obama vs Romney. I'm so confused with these lasts posts o.O.
It is with regards to Obamacare (or that's how I presume it started). People were debating whether it is good or bad (which correlates to the thread on electing either Romney for going against or Obama for sticking to his guns) and then Canada was brought into compare. Most of the posts are responses to poor posting by a few American users who make... interesting comments about math (the 7000 arm guy) and Canada having poor healthcare.
It did derail though, I agree.
|
On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point.
No he didn't prove your point... If you go by populations instead of proportions, you can't compare states whatsoever. The context in which the map was shown was to show that populations that support Romney were just dismissed by Romney. If you want to do total population, show the population of tax-payers, and non-tax payers next to each other(which will show the proportion).
I think the way you are proposing to display it, actually makes it more misleading.
Let me give an example, how about instead of non-tax payers, we just show tax payers. Then let's show you the amount of tax-payers in California(A LOT), next to the number of tax-payers in Wyoming(Not that much).
Wyoming approximately has 409,000 Tax-Payers.
California has approximately 23,310,000 Tax-Payers.
In reality, Wyoming has more tax-payers per 100 people than California does! But what does the numbers next to each other show? Nothing.
You just can't compare that lol.
|
On September 20 2012 12:16 jellyjello wrote:
[No, that's not how it works. The fact is that non-payer problem is spread across the nation. It's not just the southern states because the percentage shows that it is. You have to look at the actual number of people, not the percentage per population.
There is another stat that shows that southern states have a higher percentage in terms of donations to charity. Does that mean southern states are leading the nation in charity works? No, you have to look at the actual numbers in order to determine that. Percentages in this case don't show the whole story, and that's why it is a misleading stat.
Actually I would agree with someone saying both that the non-payer thing is a bigger issue in the South and that charitable donations are more generous in the South. In both cases, they take place nation-wide but the per capita amount (or per dollar of income amount perhaps for the charity figure?) shows them to be more acute in that region.
|
On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"?
Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point.
My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:[quote] By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. [quote] This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here.
I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue.
|
On September 20 2012 12:23 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"?
Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. No he didn't prove your point... If you go by populations instead of proportions, you can't compare states whatsoever. The context in which the map was shown was to show that populations that support Romney were just dismissed by Romney. If you want to do total population, show the population of tax-payers, and non-tax payers next to each other(which will show the proportion). I think the way you are proposing to display it, actually makes it more misleading.
You can't come to a proper conclusion by only looking at one type of stats. That's why I said you have to look at the actual numbers. I was only giving the total number of non-payers in CA as an example of what a misleading stat is. Get the point?
|
On September 20 2012 12:20 3FFA wrote:
Wait, is this now the let's ask questions about our insurance thread? What has this to do with Obama vs Romney. I'm so confused with these lasts posts o.O.
This is how this thread works. We end up discussing policy more than politics mainly. This has to be at least the fourth time we've been on the ACA.
Here's the post that started the latest round:
Actually, there's an argument to be made that this thread, for all of it's faults, is doing a better job of covering the election than the media does. The political media likes to focus on process and in general a lot of this thread is about policy.
That doesn't mean I'm not skipping reading the next round of the Abortion argument. 
|
On September 20 2012 12:30 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:23 BlueBird. wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:[quote] By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. [quote] This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. No he didn't prove your point... If you go by populations instead of proportions, you can't compare states whatsoever. The context in which the map was shown was to show that populations that support Romney were just dismissed by Romney. If you want to do total population, show the population of tax-payers, and non-tax payers next to each other(which will show the proportion). I think the way you are proposing to display it, actually makes it more misleading. You can't come to a proper conclusion by only looking at one type of stats. That's why I said you have to look at the actual numbers. I was only giving the total number of non-payers in CA as an example of what a misleading stat is. Get the point?
But all your doing is showing one kind of stat as well, so your claim is basically invalid. Also your still missing the purpose of the map. I can do some more basic math if you need more proof of why your map would be misleading.
|
On September 20 2012 12:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:
[quote]
LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here. I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue.
How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
|
On September 20 2012 12:36 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:30 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:
[quote]
More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here. I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue. How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
If it's true he actually does not care about a good percentage of his base, then he's even a bigger asshole then where he doesn't care about democrats that won't vote for him.
|
On September 20 2012 12:35 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:30 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:23 BlueBird. wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:
[quote]
LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. No he didn't prove your point... If you go by populations instead of proportions, you can't compare states whatsoever. The context in which the map was shown was to show that populations that support Romney were just dismissed by Romney. If you want to do total population, show the population of tax-payers, and non-tax payers next to each other(which will show the proportion). I think the way you are proposing to display it, actually makes it more misleading. You can't come to a proper conclusion by only looking at one type of stats. That's why I said you have to look at the actual numbers. I was only giving the total number of non-payers in CA as an example of what a misleading stat is. Get the point? But all your doing is showing one kind of stat as well, so your claim is basically invalid. Also your still missing the purpose of the map. I can do some more basic math if you need more proof of why your map would be misleading.
You probably got me confused with someone else, because I don't know what "map" I displayed here. It is not my map.
|
On September 20 2012 12:37 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:36 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:30 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:
[quote]
Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers?
The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here. I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue. How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth? If it's true he actually does not care about a good percentage of his base, then he's even a bigger asshole then where he doesn't care about democrats that won't vote for him.
Did you watch the entire video or just the highlights? Obviously it was taken out of context (yeah, heard that before right?)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:36 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:30 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:
[quote]
More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here. I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue. How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
It's not true because those 47% are not all Democrats, which he stated when he said he could never win their votes. Little did he know, a huge chunk of that 47% are Republicans.
|
On September 20 2012 12:38 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:35 BlueBird. wrote:On September 20 2012 12:30 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:23 BlueBird. wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:
[quote]
More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. No he didn't prove your point... If you go by populations instead of proportions, you can't compare states whatsoever. The context in which the map was shown was to show that populations that support Romney were just dismissed by Romney. If you want to do total population, show the population of tax-payers, and non-tax payers next to each other(which will show the proportion). I think the way you are proposing to display it, actually makes it more misleading. You can't come to a proper conclusion by only looking at one type of stats. That's why I said you have to look at the actual numbers. I was only giving the total number of non-payers in CA as an example of what a misleading stat is. Get the point? But all your doing is showing one kind of stat as well, so your claim is basically invalid. Also your still missing the purpose of the map. I can do some more basic math if you need more proof of why your map would be misleading. You probably got me confused with someone else, because I don't know what "map" I displayed here. It is not my map.
No you said look at the actual numbers.. I assumed you would add the numbers to the map instead of the proportions you think are misleading, so just ignore the part about your map, I'll talk about your numbers. Your numbers would be really misleading.
|
On September 20 2012 12:36 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:30 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:
[quote]
More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here. I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue. How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth?
Which truth?
The truth that 47% don't pay income taxes?
Or the "truth" that those 47% won't vote for him?
Or the "truth" that those 47% believe they are entitled to goverment support for food and shelter?
|
On September 20 2012 12:42 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:36 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:30 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:27 jellyjello wrote:On September 20 2012 12:21 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:
[quote]
Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers?
The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point. Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point. My "point" was that non-payer problem is nation-wide, as opposed to what the picture seems to be implying. My "point" was that I found that picture laughable because of its obvious intention to indicate that non-payers are mostly in southern states. You are arguing with the wrong person here. I know what your point is. I'm telling you what the point of that map was. It was to portray Romney's hypocrisy and his dismissive attitude towards his own voter base, aka you missed the point of the map and went on a tangent about a different issue. How is it a hypocrisy for stating the truth? Which truth? The truth that 47% don't pay income taxes? Or the "truth" that those 47% won't vote for him? Or the "truth" that those 47% believe they are entitled to goverment support for food and shelter?
I think it was the truth that people who don't pay income taxes are not just democrats.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
People should really get over the whole "Democrats are made up of leeches to society" mentality. The fact is, attorneys, doctors, teachers, professors, scientists, etc. tend to lean left. It's why you have Santorum trying to demonize "elite intellectuals."
You know something is wrong when intelligence is suddenly a vice.
|
On September 20 2012 12:53 Souma wrote:
People should really get over the whole "Democrats are made up of leeches to society" mentality. The fact is, attorneys, doctors, teachers, professors, scientists, etc. tend to lean left. It's why you have Santorum trying to demonize "elite intellectuals."
You know something is wrong when intelligence is suddenly a vice.
Attorneys are tooooootally leeches, dude~
It's how the Republican turn the 1% back at the Dems.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On an interesting note, Asians, once a more conservative demographic, have been increasingly left-leaning now. The Republican Party is in serious danger if it doesn't get its act together.
|
On September 20 2012 12:20 3FFA wrote:
Wait, is this now the let's ask questions about our insurance thread? What has this to do with Obama vs Romney. I'm so confused with these lasts posts o.O.
This thread has become the default repository for anyone interested in talking American politics and policy. Frankly it's one of the best and most informative threads that I've found ... anywhere.
Man, if you think health insurance is off topic, you should read some of the firestorms xDaunt started. LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
