Professor's take on recent election...

ks-waterbug

Group Buy Guy
Donating Member
Registered
IF these are truly facts then I can't help but ponder... Hmmmm
I was more in amazement with the first part of this story then the later, but none the less here it is...

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law,St. Paul,Minnesota,points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
 
I did notice that the total number of states doesn't come anywhere near 50 +1 nor does it take into account for the densely populated cities... Just an observation, but this is just one of many e-mails floating around. So, I thought I'd post it up for you folks as well.
 
Dont think I would believe too much of it. LINKY

Olson supposedly had the same type statistics back in 2000 and 2004:beerchug:
 
I did notice that the total number of states doesn't come anywhere near 50 +1 nor does it take into account for the densely populated cities... Just an observation, but this is just one of many e-mails floating around. So, I thought I'd post it up for you folks as well.

Interesting .........
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Makes too much sense to be untrue. I've said it before, in the USA, everyone gets the same vote, whether you pay taxes don't break laws or not. It's the great thing about our country, but also a weakness. When there become more "takers" than "givers", lookout...
 
Makes too much sense to be untrue. I've said it before, in the USA, everyone gets the same vote, whether you pay taxes don't break laws or not. It's the great thing about our country, but also a weakness. When there become more "takers" than "givers", lookout...

Unfortunately a very good point....
 
Number of people that voted for Obama: 69,460,498
Number of people that voted for McCain: 59,930,180


Interesting....:unclesam:
 
So the "article" is clearly bogus, but I'm not going to argue we don't live in an apathetic America. We're a fat, lazy, and unhappy nation. Maybe after lunch :laugh: if I feel like it, I'll write more about my take on this... :poke: :rofl:
 
yea you can spin things any way you want.

maybe this professor should spend his time and effort convincing those in power to 'tweak' the electoral college
 
although the story as posted may be bull, the reasoning and theory behind it is solid. If you don't believe it could happen, ponder this thought.

What happens when we have more people living off government aid and welfare than we have working people paying taxes?

At some point, it is possible, there will not be enough tax money coming in to support all the programs that give to those that don't work. I'm all for helping those that can't work and those that need the help, however I'm strongly opposed to supporting those that could work but just choose not to.
 
although the story as posted may be bull, the reasoning and theory behind it is solid. If you don't believe it could happen, ponder this thought.

What happens when we have more people living off government aid and welfare than we have working people paying taxes?

At some point, it is possible, there will not be enough tax money coming in to support all the programs that give to those that don't work. I'm all for helping those that can't work and those that need the help, however I'm strongly opposed to supporting those that could work but just choose not to.


Problem is, someone has to decide who REALLY needs help vs. who are riding big government sugar daddy for all he's worth. It seems that a majority of human beings these days will take the easy wrong instead of the hard right - used to not be that way and our forefathers and those that started these entitlement programs with good intentions never foresaw a world full of lazy Americans who want a free ride. The "everybody else is, why shouldn't I?"-mentality...Like taking food stamps while chatting on a cell phone, smoking a cigarette wearing Michael Jordan airs...

In my father's generation, it would have been an embarrassment to take a handout, now, you are ridiculed as foolish if you don't cheat for something you don't deserve...
 
Problem is, someone has to decide who REALLY needs help vs. who are riding big government sugar daddy for all he's worth. It seems that a majority of human beings these days will take the easy wrong instead of the hard right - used to not be that way and our forefathers and those that started these entitlement programs with good intentions never foresaw a world full of lazy Americans who want a free ride. The "everybody else is, why shouldn't I?"-mentality...Like taking food stamps while chatting on a cell phone, smoking a cigarette wearing Michael Jordan airs...

In my father's generation, it would have been an embarrassment to take a handout, now, you are ridiculed as foolish if you don't cheat for something you don't deserve...

It's not that hard to figure out who deserves it.
Welfare should have a maximum lifetime cap, like 2 years max. Then your done.
I remember reading the republicans were considering doing a cap and an
article appeared in the paper about a woman (I wont use her name) but she
was like 3rd generation welfare with 4+ kids and at a young age with different
fathers and did not know what she would do if this came to pass.
How about closing your fricken legs and getting job like the rest of us.
Obviously there would be exceptions as in the disabled or widows with children etc.

The other thing you could do is have a welfare labor camp...your on welfare
you bring your kids and report to place "X" for work. Some welfare people will
have a "job" watching the kids the others...I don't know, have do the manual
labor for building prisons. I bet that would get them off welfare quick. And well
get prisons built cheaper...The Democrats just use welfare to buy votes.

The everybody else argument is BS....when I look in the mirror...I don't see
everybody else. I only see Me, just me, and no excuses.
 
Last edited:
i understand and somewhat agree with the previous 3 posts. however our govt has more money than most americans can comprehend. there are hundreds of programs/depts ran ineffeciently and and costing tax payers 10 to 100 times more money than all the money given for whats called welfare or food stamps. its just that the avg american is convinced that we need those programs and that there is no way to fix them or that fixing them is too difficult.

just having discussions like these is a step in the right direction but realize noone is living comfortably on welfare. those people are poor. yea there may be one peter griffin out there that the news gets ahold of that runs over and over but dont let that fool u
 
Obviously there would be exceptions as in the disabled or widows with children etc.

I don't get it, just b/c a woman's husband dies, she can no longer work, qualify for work, or justify working? Don't make an exception like that. That should give her all the more reason to work and support her family. I see the disabled exception as viable, but widow-hood does not seem like a reason for them to sit around and be one of the lazy Americans you are talking about.
 
A couple thoughts here that I think would make a big difference, most of this is common sense and fair in my opinion and based upon things I have observed.

Drug tests. Any government employee that tests positive loses their job, hence no more check, why not apply this to those who are drawing a welfare check? First time they have to go to rehab and complete rehab to keep drawing a check, second time, no more checks. We can kick them out of public housing for drug possession use, why can't we cut benefits?

Kids. Why should those on welfare draw more money for each kid they have. I understand the benefits are based upon the size of family etc, but if you can't work to feed the kids you have why should you get a raise to have more? I don't know many working people who get raises for having kids, why should we taxpayers reward those who are on welfare and have more kids? My wife and I don't have kids, cost is one of the reasons among many.

work. If they are able to work they should be doing community service. Plenty of trash on the sides of the roads and other things that they could do to help repay society for their handouts

Criminal activity. If you are drawing assistance and get convicted of a felony you should lose your assistance, or at least take a cut in it. Many of us that work would lose our jobs if we were convicted of a felony.

Cooperation. I have worked murder cases where I have had to locate people who were drawing welfare. When you can't find these people and they are key witnesses or suspects in a serious case such as murder the welfare office will not disclose where their benefits are being sent to. This is especially aggravating when the person knows you are looking for them and it can be proven they are in hiding.

Those are just a few of my peeves. My other suggestion would be for the welfare office to create a task force who's sole purpose is to investigate claims of fraud in the system. Sure it would cost money to hire people, but how much money would it save if you started weeding out those who are abusing the system? Those that really need the help have nothing to hide.
 
A couple thoughts here that I think would make a big difference, most of this is common sense and fair in my opinion and based upon things I have observed.

Drug tests. Any government employee that tests positive loses their job, hence no more check, why not apply this to those who are drawing a welfare check? First time they have to go to rehab and complete rehab to keep drawing a check, second time, no more checks. We can kick them out of public housing for drug possession use, why can't we cut benefits?

Kids. Why should those on welfare draw more money for each kid they have. I understand the benefits are based upon the size of family etc, but if you can't work to feed the kids you have why should you get a raise to have more? I don't know many working people who get raises for having kids, why should we taxpayers reward those who are on welfare and have more kids? My wife and I don't have kids, cost is one of the reasons among many.

work. If they are able to work they should be doing community service. Plenty of trash on the sides of the roads and other things that they could do to help repay society for their handouts

Criminal activity. If you are drawing assistance and get convicted of a felony you should lose your assistance, or at least take a cut in it. Many of us that work would lose our jobs if we were convicted of a felony.

Cooperation. I have worked murder cases where I have had to locate people who were drawing welfare. When you can't find these people and they are key witnesses or suspects in a serious case such as murder the welfare office will not disclose where their benefits are being sent to. This is especially aggravating when the person knows you are looking for them and it can be proven they are in hiding.

Those are just a few of my peeves. My other suggestion would be for the welfare office to create a task force who's sole purpose is to investigate claims of fraud in the system. Sure it would cost money to hire people, but how much money would it save if you started weeding out those who are abusing the system? Those that really need the help have nothing to hide.

I don't knock anything you're saying here bro. However, what about those that can genuinely NOT better their own situation. I agree there has been ENTIRELY too much abuse of the system and it does need to stop ASAP. There is no more room for waste.
 
Back
Top