In other words you're outvoted by 36%.
Does it make sense yet? This is not a small margin and it cannot be politically reversed because the margins are too high. Were the skew relatively small (and it looks small until you subtract out federal workers) you could potentially do so, because some people won't vote and you could "motivate the base." But note that with the federal workers out, and we're not subtracting the State workers, which also exist on this same largesse, you can't get there because this means nearly 40% of those receiving such benefits would have to stay home when reductions are proposed, and they never will.
That VOTING math is flawed. The fiscal problems he mentioned seem valid......but go check the thread...the ONLY thing I ever questioned was the voter count...something YOU NEVER addressed.....
Oh I addressed it. You never caught on nor understood. Are you or have ever been a ‘taker’? I have been, as defined, a ‘taker’ for the last 25+ years. I understand and know ‘takers’ of ALL political stripes. The 36% number, if taken as a solely political philosophical vote, is probably too high. But if taken as a pocketbook issue vote, irregardless of political affiliation, is dead on. Maybe a little low. That ‘ONLY’ thing you questioned is the basis for the whole article. That ONLY thing should scare the crap outta ya. That number is growing and is being nurtured in its growth by government policies. Exponential math dictates an economic end point in the near future because of those policies. If voters continue to support present governing policies then they, the voters, support by default that coming end point. As for ‘ignorance’, well I’ve made a good living and continue to do so off of it........