Any middle class, non-union folks out there who voted for Democrats?
 

OK, somehow I deleted my post, so I'll try again..

I truly cannot see how any rational, middle class Joe, unless they work for a union, votes Democrat. Can someone help me here? I'm looking for someone who:

(1) is middle class (someone who makes too much to qualify for entitlement programs, but not someone who makes so much that they can afford huge tax hikes)
(2) does not work for a union
(3) lives in a state that has long been controlled by Democrats
(4) lives in a state with high taxes and big deficits.
(5) believes the Democrats have a superior economic vision that the GOP.

If you meet all these criteria, WHY do you believe the Democrats have a better economic strategy? Those who run households know that you can't spend more than you have. Those who run businesses know you can't spend more than you have. If you think governments are immune from the pitfalls of reckless spending, have you ever heard of Greece, France, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Great Britain? All "light" socialist countries, all realize they must slash spending or go belly-up. And we want to go down that path?

I just don't get it. Common sense, as well as ALL AVAILABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, suggest that the liberal policy of tax-and-spend doesn't work. So why did folks who meet my criteria, vote Democrat?

kinda like stomping on the gas when you see the light changing to yellow at the intersection up ahead....huh?

Define poor, middle class, and rich in detail.......... I think the government classifies some people as rich when they really aren't

I live in the People's Republic of Konnecticut. We went even further left on Tuesday.

The Hartford Courant has recently reported that CT has the 5th highest taxes in the nation, yet we have the worst deficit in the nation (measured as dollars per citizen). And the deficit does NOT include our unfunded liabilities for healthcare and retirement benefits for municipal unions, for which CT has the 5th highest debt in the nation (measured again as dollars per citizen). And the Dems have been in charge forever.

SO the Dems have taxed us to death, yet managed to spend much more. They're like an NBA superstar who makes $15 mill a year, yet goes bankrupt...that's how fiscally irresponsible the Dems have been.

And on Tuesday, we elected even more of them.

WHY? How can any sane person conculde that raising taxes and spending more, is the way to correct this? What evidence exists to suggest that crazy spending is the way to get out of debt? Please share with me...

It's worse, and more stupid. Because in this case, we have the ability to see that every car ahead of us that has stomped on the gas, has been demolished in a crash because of it. Yet we're going to choose the same exact course of action, even though someone else is suggesting that a better strategy might be to step on the brake instead.

Thus my belief that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Making Identification mandatory would eliminate most if not all the Democrats.

With the number of gov. workers and ex-gov workers it's no wonder the Dems keep getting elected. It's only going to get worse with the huge growth in public sector jobs. The public union #'s now are greater then the private union #'s. This is scary stuff. When you employ the people that vote for you istead of the voters employing the people that run for office, the whole system is upside down.

Jim - giddy articles all over Boston newspapers, headlines like "Republican revolution fails in Mass".
The "why" to your question is branding. The Dems have succesfully branded themselves as the owners of civil rights and the advocates for the middle class. Repubs have been branded as corporate sell outs and slaves of the rich. People also think Bush=Republican and the story ends there.
Its really that simple. I've had major arguments with liberal friends and they always say - you make a lot of great points, those are strong arguments. But they cannot get over their wrath of bush, fox news, and sarah palin.

I believe Michael Savage has a mental disorder.

You can no longer be fiscally conservative and still be nice to all the people. If you want to progressively right all the wrongs of the last 1000 years you have to spend other people's money to do it. That and you've solicited yourself out so much that you have to sign yes to most everything that comes your way (not limited to any party) and keep giving out to the voter base that elects you - mostly applies to the left.

Unfortunately, what will likely happen.

Short term:

Expect your insurance premiums to go up even more in addition to the 1-2K they went up in the past year or so.
Expect to pay 2K to 5K more in taxes if you are married, family, and household income of 60K - 120K per year. Ds will blame Rs, Rs will blame Ds.
Expect your property taxes to go up.
Expect sales / use / fees / consumption taxes.

Long term:

Expect fewer people to pay more share for everyone else.
Expect to see in the deficit the equivalent of our ENTIRE GDP.
Expect to see States and Cities going bankrupt.
Expect to see a reduced military.
Expect to see entire lost sectors of our economy.

There's a large group you aren't considering: The bleeding hearts. People that work with those on welfare and other social programs or sympathize deeply for them.

I was actually told once by one of these people "well if you can afford to own an iPhone then you can afford to pay more taxes." That conversation didn't end well for her.

John R -

"I believe Michael Savage has a mental disorder."

Agreed, he's an idiot.

"You can no longer be fiscally conservative and still be nice to all the people."

I could not disagree more. NOTHING in the fiscally conservative ideology excludes charity. In fact, most studies show that conservatives give more time and money to charity, than liberals (I believe that religion is the reason, who knows for sure).

In fact John R, policies that are fiscally responsible allow for greater charity than liberal ideology. If we cut the insane fat from the budgets, we have more leftover for those who truly need it.

Example: There is a woman who works for me, she makes about $100k. Her husband, a lawyer, was laid off last year, so he began collecting unemployment. While he was collecting unemployment checks, his wife told me that he TURNED DOWN TWO JOBS PAYING $100,000, because he didn't think either was "the right job for him". And he still gets to collect unemployment benefits? That's bullsh*t.

There's SO MUCH waste in government budgets that could be eliminated. Tell municipal workers that they have to switch from pensions to 401 (k)'s like the rest of us had to do 15 years ago, and you save a TON of money that could help people.

You get my drift...

Yup - my lib buddy said to me "you dont really need that big of a tv"
I said its none of your f'in business what I do with my money, I earned it and no one gave it to me. Then I went into a tirade how my parents busted their a$$ so send me to college, how I used to see my Dad going to work at 3pm on Thanksgiving, Christmas and him telling me that he just cant give up make double time and a half. It killed me as a kid.

That's a good point, there are some people for whom the economy is not their #1 priority, and they might vote Democrat because they are more concerned about slaughtering 4,000 unborn babies a day, or giving civilian trials to captured terrorists, or using tax dollars to fund pornography.

But the exit polling showed that the economy was most people's #1 priority. I still haven't seen one person respond to my original question. I'm genuinely trying to understand why someone concerned about the economy, could vote Democrat. It makes zero sense to me, and I can usually understand what others are thinking.

"HOPE"

branding Jim. See my initial reply. Here is a PERFECT example.
Look at the Meg Whitman story. Multi millionaire hires a mexican woman as a housekeeper. If you stop right there, you see a rich white person giving someone a job. Its a win/win. It clearly shows support of immigrants and clearly shows that Meg is not a racist.
Then - and regardless of the details/fault - she finds out the housekeeper is illegal and she is fired. Meg DOES NOT report her, does not try to get her arrested, nothing.
What does the Latino lobbying orgs do? They fund 5 million in ads against Meg Whtiman! WHy? Its branding. They can brand her as being bad for latinos. when its a fact she was willing to hire and pay someone well for their services!
I've heard over and over that Bush "trampled on civil rights" We had a black woman secretary of state ( a first) a black man as secretary of state ( a first) and a latino attornet general ( a first). However that was NEVER acknowledged. The Dem machine is very succesful at establshing a negative Republican brand

I think I told you the other day to use smileys - I should have taken my own advice or perhaps start & end with /sarcasm :devil2::love:

I was being tongue in cheek when I wrote that (not about Savage, he is an idiot and I wrote that because the term liberalism is a mental disorder is one of his favorites)

I agree with the "branding" approach, because the Dems are branding themselves as the party of the people, if those people are minorities, illegal immigrants or welfare lifers.
As for the average, everyday, hardworking stiff: they say "Screw you!"
I guess if your intelligent enough to read, and learn the truth and facts about the individual dems in your region then you are a liability and they could care less about your plight, just as long as you keep working and pumping tax dollars into the coffers for these generally incompetant morons and crooks.

Now keep in mind that not all dems are like this. There are some that don't subscribe to the "blind leading the blind" party lines. Some ACTUALLY are hardworking individuals (stress INDIVIDUALS) and that's good.

Tim and RIJIMMY, I hear you about branding. I just had this conversation with my parents, who are each 75. They grew up thinking that unless you were rich, you voted Democrat, because Republicans only care about rich people. And that may have been true at one time, not anymore.

It's funny the way Democrats have been branded, for example, as the party who cares about blacks (unless that black happens to be named Clarence Thomas). Democrats have controlled the federal legislative agenda for most of the last 50 years, and what have blacks gotten out of it? Poverty, fatherlessness, crime.

Democrats want to keep blacks addicted to a sense of welfare entitlement (give them just enough to stay alive, never enough to get ahead). That way, rich liberals can claim to care about blacks, but keep blacks from joining them on Nantucket.

Republicans want blacks to have good jobs so they can get rich if they want. Yet 95% of blacks vote Democrat. That's branding all right, very effective branding.

agree 100%

The silence is deafening.

Another nationwide search today by Cadillac

Patrick taps Milton neighbor Roderick Ireland for chief justice job - Quincy, MA - The Patriot Ledger

messaging is a big problem for the repubs as well. Here is a simple one, a compelling one, but I bet you never heard it.
Obama passed though legistaltion to protect consumers from fees and other credit card expenses. it was labeled as consumer protection. Everyone in American can relate to this and on the surface looks like the right thing to do. The reality is that the majority of the people impacted by fees and raised interest rates are those not paying their bills. The banks, issuing the credit cards manage their business by a profit margin. These fees and expenses were very, very lucrative for the banks (because they're evil). So what do the banks do to compensate for the lack of revenue that the legislation did away with? It is raising fees across the board on normal banking accounts, limiting teller interaction, bascially raising fees for the majority of their clients who do not have the credit card issues. Now you can argue thats wrong, but its their business, you're weclome to go elsewhere. But the unintended circumstances of the legislation by Obama will cost the AVERAGE person MORE ! Dont believe me? Google B of A raising fees, Citizen raising fees. Its a fact.
If the repubs packaged a SIMPLE message like this, people would understand.

You are trapped in a "capitalist" view of economy. An economy that is ultiately driven by individual motivation to gather wealth (what is called greed by some).

Those who view economy as a system of producing goods and services directly by and for the use of collective society rather than by individuals for profit and to indivuals by need and desire are not so concerned about capital (e.g. money), nor what ultimately happens to a system built on capital (except to abolish it). Such a collectivist economic system is based on the labor of all for the common "good"--generally the good is that which is needed to survive--somewhat modeled after basically perfect systems such as bee hives and ant hills. Monetary considerations and selfish motives are not necessary, rather, in fact, are detrimental to such economies.

Humans are, as Spence has observed, flawed. We seem to have an inherent need to be separate from, as well as a part of, the group--a sort of Adam and Eve complex. The founders grappled with this human condition and produced a society of individuals wherein the common good is blended with and driven by individual freedom from oppression by the group. And that society best expresses and maintains itself by individuals being motivated to survive and thrive within the constitutional framework that best preserves the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all. This has best flourished in a "capitalist" economic system.

A flaw manifested by the current Democrat Party is thinking that, somehow, we can maintain that individualist streak yet still drift into a society based not on individual motivation, but, rather, on group idealism--that, morally, the individual is responsible, first, not to himself, but to the well being of all. If "money" is a problem for such a group economy, then solve the problem with fictional theories such as Keynsian economics. Mix economies. If the first, or second, or third infusion of monopoly money doesn't work, spend more . . . eventually all will be well. And if, eventually, it doesn't work, not to fret, it will be proven that monetary, or capitalist, "systems" don't work, and we can then, in earnest, start to collectively produce goods and services for each other without the need for profits and individual greed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WHY? How can any sane person conculde that raising taxes and spending more, is the way to correct this? What evidence exists to suggest that crazy spending is the way to get out of debt? Please share with me...

The silence is deafening.


because...just as Chris Matthews stated the other night...people like he and Obama were taught this when they were in graduate school :uhuh:

have you seen the funny video of the guy that went to the Sanity Rally with the "Obama is a Keynesian" sign and then recorded all of the tools arguing with him that Obama is an American citizen born right here in America and not...in fact...a Keynesian...some of them were quite arrogant about it....freakin' hilarious:rotf2:

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

That's the one. Laughed and cried when I saw it. Though before some get their panties in a buch, yes, this video does not include the people who obviously knew what it meant.