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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

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...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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).

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

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)

[FishermanTim]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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%