January 21, 201412 yr No, it's an anecdote to demonstrate that government assistance isn't so easily correlated to voting behavior. But, I do think if you zoom out to the South and other rural areas more broadly you'll find Owsley isn't an exception. Do you think that rural folks on assistance vote at a higher incidence or lower than those in more urban areas? Or likely similar?
January 21, 201412 yr I honestly don't think most people can handle an honest answer to this question. The honest answer to this question would have people calling you names. We don't want hard answers in this country we want the most PC answer that doesn't hurt anyones feelings. I disagree. If your idea of a "hard" answer is a prejudicial answer based on racial stereotypes, then you're right. If your idea of a "hard" answer involves data and is logically sound then I think any complaints will be petty.
January 21, 201412 yr Or, crazy as it may seem, we would go get another JOB. I know, ludicrous. Too much work. I'd just hook up with some rich Republican widow.
January 21, 201412 yr Do you think that rural folks on assistance vote at a higher incidence or lower than those in more urban areas? Or likely similar? I don't know. My guess would be similar.
January 21, 201412 yr Too much work. I'd just hook up with some rich Republican widow. No such thing.
January 21, 201412 yr You and every other employed person posting on this board is one merger, one "whoops" e-mail, one pink slip away from becoming a "citizen on assistance." Good post...:thumb: And I have been there, but because the government assistance was short-term and not at the level I aspired to when I wrote the email and got laid off, I was highly motivated to get a job, and did....and the rest is history. I go back to assistance should be a hand up...not a permanent hand out. I'll leave it at that.
January 21, 201412 yr I agree with this totally. I'm not sure it's a "we're all in this together" attitude. That's socialism, ain't it? I think it's "I'm gonna do what I can to make sure I get what I can", so maybe that's my personal snapshot. No, it's not socialism. I'm just trying to figure out where you have gleaned your personal snapshot of Urban voters, and urban assistance-receiving voters in particular. The poor vote for liberals because they feel the gov will take care of them and give them free money, food, housing, and be able to live off others so they won't have to work. The reason unemployment benefits are continued every time is the gov wants to keep those people on a leash. Our gov doesn't want to add jobs, they want people to rely on the gov so they can get votes. :wtf: :banghead: :ohbrother:
January 21, 201412 yr No, it's not socialism. I'm just trying to figure out where you have gleaned your personal snapshot of Urban voters, and urban assistance-receiving voters in particular. Well, I can tell you very matter of factly, that the people I know and have treated in government housing (so it was urban enough to have project housing) have the assistance down to a science. They know to the penny what they get if they have another child. They know how much they get if the father is also on assistance. They know how much they can earn without affecting their assistance. It's not just being aware, it's a calculated lifestyle. My snapshot is jaded. I'll admit that because I know how abused it is. I am all for helping those in need, I do it apart from work all the time, and enjoy it. But abuse of that system really irks me. I don't mean to paint with a broad brush, and inevitably I do. There are some folks who use the assistance as doomer said and try to make more of what they are instead of becoming assistance lifers. In my experience, they are the exception, not remotely the rule.
January 21, 201412 yr Well, I can tell you very matter of factly, that the people I know and have treated in government housing (so it was urban enough to have project housing) have the assistance down to a science. They know to the penny what they get if they have another child. They know how much they get if the father is also on assistance. They know how much they can earn without affecting their assistance. It's not just being aware, it's a calculated lifestyle. My snapshot is jaded. I'll admit that because I know how abused it is. I am all for helping those in need, I do it apart from work all the time, and enjoy it. But abuse of that system really irks me. I don't mean to paint with a broad brush, and inevitably I do. There are some folks who use the assistance as doomer said and try to make more of what they are instead of becoming assistance lifers. In my experience, they are the exception, not remotely the rule. I can't speak to the people in your example or area. I can only speak for the people I know, most of whom actually DO have jobs but still need assistance. I find it interesting that we never talk about those people. We only ASSUME that the MAJORITY are deadbeats. But there are far, far more people on assistance that are working, retired seniors or mentally and/or physically handicapped. Maybe not true in your example area, but having lived in an urban area for pretty much my whole life, having been one of those working and eligible for assistance, and working for over 20 years in a low-paying industry, I can tell you, the majority actually work, and they work hard. The work washing dishes, cleaning hotel rooms, driving shuttle vans, cleaning up vomit out of public areas, serving food to well-heeled travelers, flipping burgers at fast food joints, selling lottery tickets and beer at convenience stores, ushering at concerts and sporting events, making reservations for hotel rooms and car rentals, checking in guests when they arrive at hotels, cleaning homes, mowing lawns, blowing snow, working as retail clerks in malls and boutiques, taking tickets at attractions....gosh...the list goes on and on.
January 21, 201412 yr Author I'm not sure a rural county in Kentucky compares socially or in any other way with people on assistance in a large urban area....say LA, Chicago, Detroit. How did they vote? Can you even prove that they voted?
January 21, 201412 yr I can't speak to the people in your example or area. I can only speak for the people I know, most of whom actually DO have jobs but still need assistance. I find it interesting that we never talk about those people. We only ASSUME that the MAJORITY are deadbeats. But there are far, far more people on assistance that are working, retired seniors or mentally and/or physically handicapped. Maybe not true in your example area, but having lived in an urban area for pretty much my whole life, having been one of those working and eligible for assistance, and working for over 20 years in a low-paying industry, I can tell you, the majority actually work, and they work hard. The work washing dishes, cleaning hotel rooms, driving shuttle vans, cleaning up vomit out of public areas, serving food to well-heeled travelers, flipping burgers at fast food joints, selling lottery tickets and beer at convenience stores, ushering at concerts and sporting events, making reservations for hotel rooms and car rentals, checking in guests when they arrive at hotels, cleaning homes, mowing lawns, blowing snow, working as retail clerks in malls and boutiques, taking tickets at attractions....gosh...the list goes on and on. I have no problem with that either. As a matter of fact, I had an assistant who had to quit because if she worked over 32 hours at her wage she would lose some of her benefit for her children. So, I'm not oblivious to that part of the demographic. But back to the original point, do you think that, regardless of the basis for the necessity of assistance, that it effects how one would vote?
January 21, 201412 yr What I find humorous is that Fox was all over the stories in November '12 involving certain precincts in Chicago or Philly that cast hundreds of votes for Obama and ZERO votes for Romney. My friends, such does not happen with an uninformed electorate, because an uninformed electorate will at least cast a handful of votes for the wrong person. No, these voters are pretty savvy politically.
January 21, 201412 yr I have no problem with that either. As a matter of fact, I had an assistant who had to quit because if she worked over 32 hours at her wage she would lose some of her benefit for her children. So, I'm not oblivious to that part of the demographic. But back to the original point, do you think that, regardless of the basis for the necessity of assistance, that it effects how one would vote? No, I don't believe it does.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.