Bush Voters Have Lower IQs

[Sleepy Jesus]

I just said that

We posted at the same time.

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

Ok, ask yourself this question... Why are there no Liberal KKK??? :laugh:

Why in the hell would you want to compare the KKK to anyone. They are off in their own world and are degenerates and sub human.

[Djmutik1013]

We posted at the same time.

sry

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

Bush is a puppet of the interests of the really whealty ultraconservatives, he must be stopped

Ignorant people must be stopped! O_o

[raggety]

no, i'm not from mississippi (actually CA) and as for proof of how he has helped the economy (and why to vote for him), see my previous post. there's some real data for u to chew on.

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

no, i'm not from mississippi (actually CA) and as for proof of how he has helped the economy (and why to vote for him), see my previous post. there's some real data for u to chew on.

Well said.

[jamend]

I see you spend your time watching CNN most of the time. There were threats. There are different kinds of threats. WMD was not the only reason why he toppled Suddam Hussein. To keep it short, try heightening YOUR IQ and you might see it too.

I, being German myself, doubt that too many other Germans care very much about what's on CNN. Here's a good reason:

[u_diddy]

no, i'm not from mississippi (actually CA) and as for proof of how he has helped the economy (and why to vote for him), see my previous post. there's some real data for u to chew on.

I got something you can chew on too

[betasp]

It is a load. IQ scores are protected and cannot be released without you permission. Your voting record is public record but not IQ. And besides all they did was take the average income for the state and the average IQ for the same state. This FAR from any kind of accurate sample.

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

Burdening the middle

Libraries that file government studies need a new category for reports that document the shortcomings and unfairness of Bush administration policies. Perhaps they could be placed under a general heading of "No Kidding."

The latest addition to what would be a very thick volume is a study released last week by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO report shows not only that President Bush's tax cuts have been grotesquely skewed toward the richest 1 percent of Americans, but that the remaining tax burden is actually being shifted from the wealthy onto the middle class.

On the one hand, it's a shame that good money has to be spent to make such obvious points.

Still, this is an election year, and it's useful to have hard numbers to point out the directions where the President has led. (Remember that the CBO is directed by a Republican-dominated Congress and led by a former top economic adviser to the Bush administration.)

A third of the tax cuts (an average of $78,460 per taxpayer) went in 2004 to the 1 percent of households with the highest incomes. Their incomes averaged almost $1.2 million, and their tax cuts were more than 70 times those of middle-income families.

Meanwhile, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 20 percent dropped from 64.4 percent to 63.5 percent, while the tax burden of middle-class households ? with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 ? increased from 18.7 percent to 19.5 percent.

Those findings may not seem stark. But the trend is dismaying because it reverses the 20th Century tradition of distributing the tax burden fairly according to ability to pay, and because taxes are being reduced on wealth (such as capital gains and dividend taxes) and proportionately raised on earned income in paychecks.

Bush administration spokesmen will cry "class warfare," but that is a contemptible diversion to cut off scrutiny and debate. They will claim they are returning the people's money. But that's not true. They are spending every nickel and then some ? to the tune of a deficit approaching $500 billion. What they are doing is borrowing money to finance tax cuts.

They also will argue that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth. But high-end tax cuts are an ineffective stimulus, and the latest disappointing jobs figures show that the recovery has been tepid at best.

Tom Teepen, a columnist, calls it "trickle-up economics." Right idea, wrong metaphor. It's not a trickle; it's a flood.

hmmm...

[madden_832000]

As long as everybody is bashing the rebuplicans, let's take a look at our wonderful democratic presidents, aka Bill, JFK, etc. I'd say that if we look at IQs there are idiots on both sides of the spectrum. Kerry isn't Mr. Clean either. I like the saying, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Lookin forward to the election.

[Djmutik1013]

We should lower taxes for all households and at the same time cut spending in the government

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

I, being German myself, doubt that too many other Germans care very much about what's on CNN. Here's a good reason:

http://funfire.de/bilder/funfire-de-1069719339-60.jpg

Granted, being German, CNN wouldn't be much interest. However, I didn't mean it literally, I was making an anology.

[+Troll Subscriber¹]

The IQ tables listed have no actual merit. Just because you see something on the Internet doesn't make it true. Take this for example:

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

Population of counties won by:

Gore=127 million

Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:

Gore=580,000

Bush=22,427,000

States won by:

Gore=19

Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by :

Gore=13.2

Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

I have no idea who Professor Olson is, nor do I really care.

Former Senator Robert Byrd WAS a member of the KKK, I'll direct you to research it if you must have proof.

What intrigues me is that everyone says that Bush is only for the rich and Kerry is for the "common man." There is nothing "common" about John Kerry. He married into money twice and has an estimated net value of 77 times that of Bush (1 Billion to 13 Million, do the math.)

Another tidbit from the news regarding how Bush "stole" Florida. They've been talking about how 46,000 residents of New York City are registered to vote in both New York and Florida. Many of these people vote more than once, by absentee ballot in one state, and in the polls at another. The interesting thing is that of those 46,000 people, 68% were Democrat, 12% Republican and 16% had no party affiliation (don't ask me where the other 4% went). Common logic would suggest that if anything happened, Gore would lose votes, therefore giving Bush an even greater advantage.

You may not like Bush, you may love him. The same goes for Kerry. Almost all news is biased - CNN, Fox, you name it. I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I'll recommend Drudge Report for the most unbiased news. Then you can actually make up your own mind, without having as much of a slant one way or the other.

Regardless of who you vote for, be informed. Don't just blindly vote Republican or Democrat because thats all you know. The Anti-Bush crowd is what scares me the most, because they'll do anything to get him out of office, even if John Kerry or Ralph Nader or whomever may not support them as well. Just because Bush is the devil to many of them.

In terms of this election, I look at it very simply - "What is the most important issue for me?" I firmly believe that National Security is the biggest issue and that abortion, gay marriage, taxes, the economy, etc...will mean nothing if we are all dead. I feel that Bush is better on that and thats why he'll get my vote. If you don't agree, thats fine - This is what makes America great.

The attacking from both sides needs to stop. Let Americans decide based on information, not on petty attacks. Even though I try to preach fairness, I'm sure someone will flame me for this post. Flaming the guy who encourages the attacks on others to stop - PRICELESS.

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

Burdening the middle

Libraries that file government studies need a new category for reports that document the shortcomings and unfairness of Bush administration policies. Perhaps they could be placed under a general heading of "No Kidding."

The latest addition to what would be a very thick volume is a study released last week by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO report shows not only that President Bush's tax cuts have been grotesquely skewed toward the richest 1 percent of Americans, but that the remaining tax burden is actually being shifted from the wealthy onto the middle class.

On the one hand, it's a shame that good money has to be spent to make such obvious points.

Still, this is an election year, and it's useful to have hard numbers to point out the directions where the President has led. (Remember that the CBO is directed by a Republican-dominated Congress and led by a former top economic adviser to the Bush administration.)

A third of the tax cuts (an average of $78,460 per taxpayer) went in 2004 to the 1 percent of households with the highest incomes. Their incomes averaged almost $1.2 million, and their tax cuts were more than 70 times those of middle-income families.

Meanwhile, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 20 percent dropped from 64.4 percent to 63.5 percent, while the tax burden of middle-class households ? with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 ? increased from 18.7 percent to 19.5 percent.

Those findings may not seem stark. But the trend is dismaying because it reverses the 20th Century tradition of distributing the tax burden fairly according to ability to pay, and because taxes are being reduced on wealth (such as capital gains and dividend taxes) and proportionately raised on earned income in paychecks.

Bush administration spokesmen will cry "class warfare," but that is a contemptible diversion to cut off scrutiny and debate. They will claim they are returning the people's money. But that's not true. They are spending every nickel and then some ? to the tune of a deficit approaching $500 billion. What they are doing is borrowing money to finance tax cuts.

They also will argue that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth. But high-end tax cuts are an ineffective stimulus, and the latest disappointing jobs figures show that the recovery has been tepid at best.

Tom Teepen, a columnist, calls it "trickle-up economics." Right idea, wrong metaphor. It's not a trickle; it's a flood.

hmmm...

I am what you would consider poor and I saw benefit from the tax cuts. If I did then you know others did too. I will bet almost anything that the reason why maybe the rich saw more tax cuts is because they DESERVE IT. They are being taxed more just because they have more money. Taking from the rich to give to the poor. It is just wrong.

[betasp]

Those findings may not seem stark. But the trend is dismaying because it reverses the 20th Century tradition of distributing the tax burden fairly according to ability to pay...

Actually, taxes were also cut on the weathly during te 80's most economists believe that is what led to the boom in the 90's. The same is happening today, except that is deduction is the same acroos the board.

because taxes are being reduced on wealth (such as capital gains and dividend taxes) and proportionately raised on earned income in paychecks.

This is also not true, and is why we have a deficient. Had the middle class and lower class picked up the slack we would have no deficient and we would be paying more taxes. Most people are paying less taxes today that they were a couple of years ago and are saving more because and activity in our 401k's (selling of stock) is not having the same capital gains appied (depending on the circumstances).

[raggety]

I got something you can chew on too

wow, what a profound thing to say. since u couldnt think of anything else to say and u didnt have any facts to argue against what i said, you're left with only one option; trying to insult me. if the original post is correct, then u must have voted for bush.

how long did it take to come up with that little zinger (and i do mean little)?!?! :woot:

[prozak]

we all Gore voters knew it all along.

[betasp]

Another tidbit from the news regarding how Bush "stole" Florida. They've been talking about how 46,000 residents of New York City are registered to vote in both New York and Florida. Many of these people vote more than once, by absentee ballot in one state, and in the polls at another. The interesting thing is that of those 46,000 people, 68% were Democrat, 12% Republican and 16% had no party affiliation (don't ask me where the other 4% went). Common logic would suggest that if anything happened, Gore would lose votes, therefore giving Bush an even greater advantage.

'

Also keep in mind the Supreme court only made Florida follow its own laws. They wanted to break the law and continue counting votes... and the supreme court said no. The Florida legislator stole the election by enabling a law requiring the certifiction of votes that did not allow them the time to get the votes counted by hand.

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

The IQ tables listed have no actual merit. Just because you see something on the Internet doesn't make it true. Take this for example:

I have no idea who Professor Olson is, nor do I really care.

Former Senator Robert Byrd WAS a member of the KKK, I'll direct you to research it if you must have proof.

What intrigues me is that everyone says that Bush is only for the rich and Kerry is for the "common man." There is nothing "common" about John Kerry. He married into money twice and has an estimated net value of 77 times that of Bush (1 Billion to 13 Million, do the math.)

Another tidbit from the news regarding how Bush "stole" Florida. They've been talking about how 46,000 residents of New York City are registered to vote in both New York and Florida. Many of these people vote more than once, by absentee ballot in one state, and in the polls at another. The interesting thing is that of those 46,000 people, 68% were Democrat, 12% Republican and 16% had no party affiliation (don't ask me where the other 4% went). Common logic would suggest that if anything happened, Gore would lose votes, therefore giving Bush an even greater advantage.

You may not like Bush, you may love him. The same goes for Kerry. Almost all news is biased - CNN, Fox, you name it. I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I'll recommend Drudge Report for the most unbiased news. Then you can actually make up your own mind, without having as much of a slant one way or the other.

Regardless of who you vote for, be informed. Don't just blindly vote Republican or Democrat because thats all you know. The Anti-Bush crowd is what scares me the most, because they'll do anything to get him out of office, even if John Kerry or Ralph Nader or whomever may not support them as well. Just because Bush is the devil to many of them.

In terms of this election, I look at it very simply - "What is the most important issue for me?" I firmly believe that National Security is the biggest issue and that abortion, gay marriage, taxes, the economy, etc...will mean nothing if we are all dead. I feel that Bush is better on that and thats why he'll get my vote. If you don't agree, thats fine - This is what makes America great.

The attacking from both sides needs to stop. Let Americans decide based on information, not on petty attacks. Even though I try to preach fairness, I'm sure someone will flame me for this post. Flaming the guy who encourages the attacks on others to stop - PRICELESS.

Good points made. The Kerry campaign is largely only made up of Anti-Bush ideas. They BARELY have any substance.

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

wow, what a profound thing to say. since u couldnt think of anything else to say and u didnt have any facts to argue against what i said, you're left with only one option; trying to insult me. if the original post is correct, then u must have voted for bush.

how long did it take to come up with that little zinger (and i do mean little)?!?! :woot:

ROFL

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

Actually, taxes were also cut on the weathly during te 80's most economists believe that is what led to the boom in the 90's. The same is happening today, except that is deduction is the same acroos the board.

This is also not true, and is why we have a deficient. Had the middle class and lower class picked up the slack we would have no deficient and we would be paying more taxes. Most people are paying less taxes today that they were a couple of years ago and are saving more because and activity in our 401k's (selling of stock) is not having the same capital gains appied (depending on the circumstances).

Good point. After the tax cuts. My income did not go down because of higher taxes. In fact, my income went up because of "lower taxes".

[+Troll Subscriber¹]

In all reality though, America is so polarized that you'll have a bunch of people hating on each other throughout this whole election. And no matter who wins this November, that person will be despised by half of America. Its really not a win win situation either way you look at it.

[kellah]

i dont know whether to believe that because republican views and values tend to favor the upper class so i dont see why the majority of the upper class would be voting for bush. i would think it would be the other way around

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

In all reality though, America is so polarized that you'll have a bunch of people hating on each other throughout this whole election. And no matter who wins this November, that person will be despised by half of America. Its really not a win win situation either way you look at it.

Another good point. It is true. No matter who wins, he will be hated by half. That is just the way of politics. That is why I don't bother with looking at that particular point anymore. I play the political game.