Time for a fucking reprint
from three years ago.
= = = = = START FUCKING REPRINT:
Listening to a second-string Repooflican radio talker. He's running the same old tape about The Forty-Seven Percent, the same old line about Voting Largesse From The Public Treasury. He's saying that Obama is guaranteeing perpetual D majorities by offering lots of free goodies.
Nope. Not a good correlation. If there's any correlation in this area, it's not Welfare = Votes, it's Jobs = Votes.
Let's run back a few decades.
Roosevelt didn't provide welfare. He provided USEFUL WORK with pay. He got re-elected three times, and probably could have served forever if he had lived forever.
Truman first term: No new welfare, but hugely increased prosperity. Narrowly re-elected.
Truman second term: Big addition to Social Security.
Doubled benefits for most, added 10 million people to eligibility. Didn't help Stevenson in '52.
Ike first term: No new welfare; jobs plentiful; re-elected.
Ike second term: No welfare; jobs lost in recession; defeated.
JFK: No welfare; jobs gained; Dems re-elected in '64.
LBJ added Medicare, a vast new piece of WELFARE, along with big urban welfare programs; but didn't add any jobs. Dems lost in '68.
Nixon's first term: No new welfare, lots of jobs. Re-elected.
Nixon's second term: Added EITC, a vast new welfare program. Oil shock lost jobs. Reps defeated. (Of course a whole lot of other shit happened to Nixon, so this variable probably didn't matter.)
Carter: No new welfare, big job loss. Defeated.
Reagan: No new welfare, big job gain. Re-elected twice. (Bush The Father was fraudulently portrayed as a continuation of Reagan.)
Bush The Father: No new welfare, job loss. Defeated.
Clinton first term: Best test of the variables. Actually REMOVED a major welfare program at end of first term, required welfare recipients to take jobs. Didn't even provide
the jobs as FDR had done; the booming economy provided the jobs. Re-elected.
Clinton second term: Dot-com bust. Defeated.
Bush The Son first term: Added Medicare Part D, which nobody wanted. Strong jobs. Re-elected. (Other shit happened, overpowering these variables.)
Bush The Son second term: No new welfare, huge job loss. Defeated.
Obama's first term: Might be the only exception to the rule. Terrible job record, brought back the welfare program that Clinton had canceled. Re-elected.
= = = = =
Looks like an imperfect but pretty decent correlation overall. People don't want welfare, they want to work.
Maybe Obama has changed the rule, but more likely it was overpowered by other factors. (When one party is pushing an unpopular program like Romneycare, the other party shouldn't run the FUCKING AUTHOR OF THE FUCKING UNPOPULAR PROGRAM against the IMPLEMENTER of the unpopular program. Makes no fucking sense.)
= = = = = END FUCKING REPRINT.
June 2017: Let's update this to include the 2016 election. We have a tremendous bloc of former workers who have given up on the world of work entirely. By the 47% Largesse Rule, these folks should be HAPPY with welfare and disability. Repooflican yappers are STILL making this idiotic point. I heard one just yesterday.
Are the 'discouraged workers' happy with welfare? FUCK NO. They are overdosing and jumping from bridges. They voted for Trump, knowing that he's a shallow faker and possibly a Deepstate mole, but DESPERATELY NEEDING TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT LARGESSE IS NOT A HAPPY PLACE.
Labels: Make or break, skill-estate