Liberals constantly post opinions with no supporting evidence. Worse yet, when evidence is presented, instead of refuting claims with evidence of their own, they demand that somebody else provide better evidence. I don't play that game. If you don't think that the huge gap in percentages of people with low incomes supporting Obama and those who voted for Romney is illuminating, then provide your own evidence to support your position.

 

Some things are self evident and the fact that Obama's presidency has been a failure and is only going to go downhill from here is one of those things (in my opinion). Feel free to present evidence of Obama's effectiveness. This is the court of public opinion but to me, it looks like the jury is ready to deliver its verdict two years early on Obama's performance. The glove fits.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm sorry that it bothers you, but when people throw around numbers (those making under $30,000 put Obama in office, due to "freebies") they should expect to be asked to substantiate their claims.

 

With this issue, I don't know whether it has merit or not, because I can't find anything to confirm or refute it.

Never said EIC wasn't a big deal to those that get it. It is a big deal, and trust me, I was a benefactor of the EIC for several years in my 20's. My point, was that the EIC has been a Bi-Partisan entitlement, and expanded by every President since it's inception (Reagan made one of the biggest expansions in 1986, which in fairness were tied to closing other loopholes). It's such an established part of our tax code, though, that I don't think it has any influence over voting behavior (unless of course a candidate was threatening to end it, which I don't think anyone has suggested). Especially considering nearly 1 in 5 that are eligible for the credit, completely miss the opportunity to take it.

 

Yeah I don't think EIC recipients vote Democrat for that reason specifically, but more a general assumption that they will get more assistance (or at least not have it cut) if Dems are in office.

 

My point wasn't to speak to voting tendencies, but just addressing the economics of low income households.

If you don't think the EIC is a big deal to those who receive it, try stopping by your local Liberty Tax or H&R Block office the first week of February and see the stampede.

 

It's just my opinion but I view the EIC as better than straight welfare since it supplements income in an effort to keep low income workers in the work force. If you have kids and you're making $20k per year, another $4-6k of income is huge.

 

I STILL file my taxes ASAP & I haven't been EIC eligible in 20 years at least.

 

Is it big deal? Yes. Is it as impactful long term as other programs? I (from many years of personal experience) think not. Many people use that to pay off past due bills, make car repairs, put a down payment on a car, buy other needs (appliances, for example).

If you don't think that the huge gap in percentages of people with low incomes supporting Obama and those who voted for Romney is illuminating, then provide your own evidence to support your position.

What you have failed to realize from the get-go is that this under-$30 grand crowd includes a significant number of retirees. So you might want to better define your classist argument. As I said earlier, the 14-point gap in the female vote both in '08 and '12 is the single most important factor why our first Hawaiian president decisively won the Electoral College both times. Obama is far from our worst president, i.e. Bush 43, Buchanan, Hoover.

What you have failed to realize from the get-go is that this under-$30 grand crowd includes a significant number of retirees. So you might want to better define your classist argument. As I said earlier, the 14-point gap in the female vote both in '08 and '12 is the single most important factor why our first Hawaiian president decisively won the Electoral College both times. Obama is far from our worst president, i.e. Bush 43, Buchanan, Hoover.

The fact that you carefully omitted Jimmy Carter, ruins your credibility.

The fact that you carefully omitted Jimmy Carter, ruins your credibility.

Credibility worries on this board? Ha ha ha. For the sake of argument, though, you are correct. We certainly could list Carter, Grant, perhaps a couple others among the bottom dwellers. While we're at it, let's also give a shout-out to arguably the worst violator of the Constitution of all of 'em -- Honest Abe.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm sorry that it bothers you, but when people throw around numbers (those making under $30,000 put Obama in office, due to "freebies") they should expect to be asked to substantiate their claims.

 

With this issue, I don't know whether it has merit or not, because I can't find anything to confirm or refute it.

That is not how the debating process works. I will support my position with as many facts as I deem necessary. You are free to attempt to refute my claims with your own claims supported by facts that you want to provide. If you cannot refute my claims through your own research, then I feel no compulsion to do further research.

 

If, on the other hand, you want to expend some more effort, then I may choose to do the same. This is a sports forum. My goal is not to compose a treatise to support every opinion that I decide to share with you.

What you have failed to realize from the get-go is that this under-$30 grand crowd includes a significant number of retirees. So you might want to better define your classist argument. As I said earlier, the 14-point gap in the female vote both in '08 and '12 is the single most important factor why our first Hawaiian president decisively won the Electoral College both times. Obama is far from our worst president, i.e. Bush 43, Buchanan, Hoover.

Once again, your assumption is incorrect. I understand very well that many retirees fall under the $30,000/year threshold that I cited. Romney won the 65 and older vote by a margin of 56% to 44%. BTW, women voted for Obama by an 11 percent margin in 2012, not the 14 percent margin that you claimed.

 

As for your statement that Obama is "far from our worst president" - I noticed that you omitted one James Earl Carter from you list of presidents worse that Obama. All I can say about your list is :lol2:

Deleted.

That is not how the debating process works. I will support my position with as many facts as I deem necessary. You are free to attempt to refute my claims with your own claims supported by facts that you want to provide. If you cannot refute my claims through your own research, then I feel no compulsion to do further research.

 

If, on the other hand, you want to expend some more effort, then I may choose to do the same. This is a sports forum. My goal is not to compose a treatise to support every opinion that I decide to share with you.

 

I guess that I missed any facts that you provided to support your opinion.

 

I can't find anything on those making $30,000 or under or those on public assistance. I can only offer anecdotal claims from people that I know that fall in both categories. None supported Obama in any way so I can't image them voting for him...and perhaps they didn't vote at all. However, my very small sample size wouldn't be adequate for reaching a conclusion.

According to Roper (link below) it was a 13-point spread in '08. I believe Gallup listed a 14-point difference. Regardless, I'll gladly accept your 11-point spread in '08, since it indicates that hundreds of thousands more female voters abandoned the GOP between '08 and '12.

 

Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 2008 Presidential Election

Read my post again, please. I said that it was an 11 point spread in 2012, not 2008. I don't really blame people for getting carried away with the historic milestone of having a black American running for president in 2008. I am much more concerned for the people who failed to learn their lessons from Obama's first term and made the same mistake twice by voting for the tyrant again in 2012.

 

Roper Center - 2012 Votes by Demographics

I guess that I missed any facts that you provided to support your opinion.

Missed or ignored, it's all the same.

Missed or ignored, it's all the same.

 

If you feel that attacking the person, rather than the argument, is what you need to do, then I suppose any further attempt at dialogue is futile.

If you feel that attacking the person, rather than the argument, is what you need to do, then I suppose any further attempt at dialogue is futile.

First you complained that I provided voting percentages instead of raw votes to support my position and now you complain that I provided no facts, ignoring the statistics about which you had already complained. Please feel free to ignore my future posts if you wish.