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

[JohnnyD]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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"

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[scottw]

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

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.