It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Ron Paul Mathematically Eliminating Himself From Winning?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I plan to vote for Dr. Paul, and it makes me angry when people call him crazy, or say that his ideas are crazy. What those people are really saying is that they are afraid! They are afraid of what it would mean if Dr. Paul became president, but they shouldn't be afraid, we know that even if Dr. Paul wins, congress doesn't have enough like-minded people in its ranks in order for him to make big changes. The numbers are against him.
The real difference of his presidency would be through the state department and its activities. I'd be interested to hear who he would like to head up that cabinet position.

Speaking of numbers, I have put together a few ball park (very rough) approximations as to what Dr. Paul's Anti-big government stance means in terms of Eligible Voter Count in 2012.
Big government doesn't bother me as much as big government with lots of waste and inefficiencies.

Anyhow, if the government is considered BIG, that means it likely employs LOTS of people. And we know that the US government is the largest employer BY FAR (sorry Wal-Martians).

jobs.lovetoknow.com...

Say the number is about 4 million people world wide employed by the US government. Times 2? to factor in # of voting family members.
that is 8 million people.
Now the hard part is adding in those non governmental employees who earn a living off of tax payer dollars in one way, shape or form.
This would have to be the number of companies paid in whole or part via government contracts times the average number of employees. maybe 300,000 contractors times 10? employees on average = 3 Million

8 mill + 3 mill = 11 million people. Thats a big number of potential voters!

Now get these next two groups who rely on the tax dollars/government.
www.freedomworks.org...

Number of Medicaid recipients = 50 Million (likely to be at least 50% elligible to vote = 25 Million)
Number of people dependent on welfare = 4.4 Million ( perhaps 50% elligible = 2.2. million
Number of food stamp beneficiaries = 40 Million (again perhaps 50% elligible to vote = 20 million)

Total is at least 11 mill + 25 mill + 2.2 mill + 20 million people =
58.5 Million people who are dependent on the government and tax dollars, and who are potential voters.

So, in the 2008 election, guess how many individual votes President Obama got? (btw, 2008 was an UP year in voter turnout)
Total turnout in 2008 = 132,645,504 (131,304,731 voted for president that year)
President Obama got 69,456,897 votes.
John McCain got 59,934,814 votes.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now the number of people dependent on the status quo is almost equal to the number of votes each party would get in a well attended election year.
Now, if you are a presidential candidate saying that you are going to get rid of the status quo, you are in grave jeopardy of losing essentially every vote you would have gotten if you just played along like 'everyone else.'

I support Dr. Paul's message, but he is essentially telling a large portion of potential voters that he plans on cutting off their supply of cash.
He must know this, and he must know that there aren't enough people who don't need government money/tax payer money in order to over come this staggering figure of over 50 Million voters.

Of note, isn't it interesting that there were 213,231,835 elligible voters and only 131,304,731 voted for president.
So 69 mill / 213 mill = 32.4%

Basically the winner of the US presidential election is decided by less than 1/3 of the total elligible voters. Sad to say, but the president really seems to only represent a minority of Americans.
elections.gmu.edu...
FYI - Over 3,000,000 Americans are ineligible to vote due to Felony. That's a big number too.

Good Luck Dr. Paul, I'm pulling for you!




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Actually, a lot of those government workers would most likely keep their jobs, but instead of saying they work for the federal government, they'll say they work for the state government.

Same for the programs, they'll be overlooked by the states and communities the people live in.

When Paul says he's anti-big government, he means federal. If he allows the states to retain their powers, then they will be suited for whatever area they are in.
edit on 15-12-2011 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by satron
Actually, a lot of those government workers would most likely keep their jobs, but instead of saying they work for the federal government, they'll say they work for the state government.

Same for the programs, they'll be overlooked by the states and communities the people live in.

When Paul says he's anti-big government, he means federal. If he allows the states to retain their powers, then they will be suited for whatever area they are in.
edit on 15-12-2011 by satron because: (no reason given)


It would be nice if this were true, but I can't really see this transition from federal employee to state employee happening to such a degree as would be needed. Where will the states get the money to pay these people? Will it come from the Federal Government? That would be a clever end around maneuver, nothing would really change, but the signature on their checks?

I think that could actually work, though it would be a little bit disingenuous, but there is no sign of Dr. Paul even pitching this idea. People hear what he says and they think, he's gonna turn the system inside out and on its ear and it's too scary for people to imagine it.
He needs the opportunity to flesh out his ideas so we can do the math.



new topics
 
1

log in

join