Interesting facts regarding the last presidential election: Obama won 28 states plus DC while McCain won 20. The total number of square miles of Obama states was 1,483,702 while McCain's were 2,310,315 (1,719,311 if we take out Alaska). The average murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Obama was 6.56 while in McCain's counties it was 3.6.
While the divide was less severe than in 2004, the continued reality is that the poorer, less law-abiding sectors of our nation continually vote for the Democrat while the more affluent and more law-abiding populations vote Republican. Should it be a surprise that the result of this trend is a progressive increase in the size of government largess. This is not to say that Republicans never engage in government-run charity, but clearly the Democrats are the primary progenitors of such programs. They certainly campaign the most stridently on their willingness to provide even more direct assistance to the "needy" among us.
Today, nearly half the population pays no income taxes at all, and many of these same people (perhaps as much as 40% of the population) depend on some form of government hand-out. We have an ever-growing divide between the providers of revenue and the recipients of benefits. The question is, how do we ever stop our nation from continuing to move in this direction?
We have recently seen in Greece what happens when citizens are threatened with the loss of government entitlements: rioting in the streets. Once a benefit is bestowed, it is virtually impossible to take it back, regardless of the consequences it's having on the economy. This is why the Founders foresaw the inherent dangers in granting gifts from the public treasury to the voting citizens. Human nature inclines most people to vote themselves the best benefits, regardless of how it effects anything else.
Today we have a society that is putting its government gifts on a charge card and saddling the next generation with the payments. This is serious enough, but if Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal immigrants, and they begin to vote, we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. I think that this clearly plausible scenario can rightly be call an Apocalypse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Obama won 28 states, but even more importantly, he won by 8.5 million votes and by 192 electoral votes.
Define government largess please.
I have revised the content of this post and corrected the factual errors. I will be more conscientious in the future with my fact-checking. My central point remains the same.
I believe the Electoral College was a stroke of genius, and I favor keeping it. I am not in any way suggesting that Obama's election was stolen or fraudulant or in any other way invalid (except for the concerns about his citizenship). As far as I can see, he won fair and square. That's the point. Look at who is electing our leaders? I'm concerned that we're going to end up like Greece: a nanny state with a citizenry of selfish, irresponsible spoiled brats clammering for as much free tax-funded stuff as they can get. That will indeed spell our doom.
Dave, I don't think I can agree with "fair and square." Bogus fundraising and flagrant violations of the campaign finance laws. Foreign donors. ACORN fraud. Black Panther thug intimidation, which the alternate-universe (think the bad Kirk and Spock episode from Star Trek) corrput attorney general white-washes. He probably would have won anyway; but his operation was, and is, filthy dirty. "The ends justify the means" with these communists, don't forget.
"the poorer, less law-abiding sectors of our nation continually vote for the Democrat while the more affluent and more law-abiding populations vote Republican"
You will have to explain why those making more than $200k voted for Obama over McCain even though they knew their taxes would go up, and why the college grads went for Obama over McCain, partly a direct opposite of the 2004 election.
Never mind, I will tell you why in 3 words in order; Bush, Palin, McCain. No doubt Obama got the minorities out to vote, but certainly you are not suggesting they shouldn't vote. They always go democrat anyway.
Tom . . . I will explain it to you in one word and it has nothing to do with your three words. My word is: establishment. The affluent, the well-heeled, the spoiled coupon clippers and trust-funders . . . They're the establishment now.
Remember how, when you were young, you were anti-establishment? Well, now you're part of it and you carry all the baggage that the establishment generally does. The establishment is intrisically conservative, reactionary, and ruthlessly protective of their position. That's the explanation of the rancid, delusionally out-of-proportion vilification of the right comes from. The establishment is very powerful and it uses its power to destroy those who would try to claim a seat at the table.
So here we have the irony of our "progressive" party as the most conservative, obstructionistic force in American society . . . Their vision dates back to the turn of the LAST century. Now that's progress! There just aren't any new ideas and there won't be, from our governing set. They're the establishment now, after all, and have things right where they want them.
Is it any accident that Obama is now officially First Golfer?
Me? I've always been anti-establishment. And still am. I despise the smug, the self-satisfied. The sanctimonious. i despise the sense of entitlement and superiority the establishment always drapes itself in.
if the establishment is the over $200k folk are intrinsically conservative, then why did they vote for Obama?
To be honest, I thought about voting for McCain until after the convention when he made a hard right turn. Then when I saw the Palin facade, well, what can I say. She pretty much proved my point when she quit her job.
Post a Comment