Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Really overthinking this!
Less than one half of one percent of US citizens are responsible for two-thirds of all campaign contributions.
If you aren't independently wealthy and willing to spend your own money to get elected, you will be doing whatever the donor class demands or you will be defeated by candidates that will.
There are two ways to accommodate the donor class and still collect enough votes to win an election.
The first way is to promise lower taxes and less money for government giveaways (Republicans).
The second way is to promise more money for government giveaways and promise the government giveaways will be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy (Democrats).
Republican voters typically pay income taxes and are ineligible for government giveaways.
Democrat voters typically don't pay income taxes and benefit from government giveaways.
Since neither party's candidates have any real interest in raising taxes on the people who finance their elections, Republicans will continue to link tax breaks for working Americans to tax breaks for the donor class while Democrats will continue to promise tax increases on the donor class as a way to pay for their giveaway programs without ever actually following through with that promise.
Tax paying Americans tend to vote for Republicans because they know, in the end, and in spite of promises to the contrary, they will be stuck with the bill for government giveaway programs and also be ineligible for these programs because they work for a living.
Those eligible for government giveaway programs really don't care who pays for the programs, or if they are even paid for, as long as they are available to them, so they ignore the Democrat's repeatedly broken promise to pay for the programs by taxing the rich.
In the end, working Americans are effectively enslaved by a coalition of the needy, aggrieved and greedy known as the Democratic Party.
They resist this effectual enslavement by supporting the only party that has traditionally offered an alternative to having their earnings confiscated and used to buy the votes of people who don't pay taxes, receive government giveaways and would like nothing more that to take away their ability to resist effectual enslavement.
Because there is no morally acceptable way to advocate for a political alliance between the greedy donor class and the greedy recipient class (i.e., people that wish to enslave their fellow Americans), the Democratic agenda is presented as something that it is not.
They claim to be pro-immigration, but what they really hope to accomplish is to dilute the political power of tax-paying Americans with new, highly-dependent Democrat voters.
They claim to be pro-woman and pro-minority, but what that really means is that they hope to politically isolate and overwhelm the tax-paying working class which is disproportionately white and disproportionately male.
Over time, the self-serving agenda of this alliance has become more and more clear to the voting public as their high-blown public rhetoric has repeatedly been contradicted by actions taken in private.
For this reason and others, Democrats have become politically radioactive, and that's a good thing.
Corporate ***** Republicans, for decades, the only other choice working whites had, are facing a hostile takeover by these same working class voters, and that's a good thing too.
Typically this, typically that. I most certainly pay income tax, and I'm a Democrat. Just saying...
Typically this, typically that. I most certainly pay income tax, and I'm a Democrat. Just saying...
Knowing that Democrats have repeatedly broken their pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy when in a position to do so, and knowing that the bill for vote buying programs will be passed to working Americans, why are you politically aligned with the fraudulent, self-serving Democrat Party instead of supporting working American's effort to take over the Republican Party?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Knowing that Democrats have repeatedly broken their pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy when in a position to do so, and knowing that the bill for vote buying programs will be passed to working Americans, why are you politically aligned with the fraudulent, self-serving Democrat Party instead of supporting working American's effort to take over the Republican Party?
Because I don't like anything the Republican party wants or panders too. I am a libertarian on social issues, but liberal when it comes to economic issues. I find the Evangelicals who have huge influence in the Republican Party to be dangerous.
And btw, the Republicans were never for the working man, they were always the party of upper management and the owner class
All of this plus married women tend to hold traditional family values in higher esteem than their younger, non-married counterparts. Family values are not as big of a deal to young single women.
For me, however, I have always voted republican as I have always been a staunch financial conservative. Social issues are side attractions meant to rile the masses and obfuscate. I couldn't care less about candidates' stances on abortion, gay marriage, pot legalization. I have opinions about them, but they don't affect my vote in any way. Without financial health and strong economic policy we won't have the luxury to debate the more trivial social issues. I think younger single women are more often swayed by the social issues though.
Which is more financially conservative, voting to preserve your own tax breaks or voting to reduce tax rates for everybody?
Considering the low low voter turnout rates of the poor, buying votes with public assistance programs seems lame and ineffectual.
On the other hand, buying votes with middle class tax breaks is definitely more effective and efficient. Hard to beat middle class child and homeowner tax breaks for sheer vote-buying power.
And as for Medicare, the amount different people have paid in Medicare tax can be quite substantial.
Let's look at two examples, shall we...
Given: The Medicare tax has no cap.
A self-employed individual (business owner, 1099 contractor, etc.) pays the full 2.9% Medicare tax, which has no cap.
Such an individual with a career average annual income of $1,000,000 (not unusual for a business owner) pays Medicare tax for 35 years.
$1,000,000 ☓ 2.9% ☓ 35 = $1,015,000
Now let's look at what a middle class employee (who pays 1.45% Medicare tax, not the full 2.9%) with a 35 year annual average income of $55,000 would have paid:
$55,000 ☓ 1.45% ☓ 35 = $27,912.50
[b]
HUGE difference in what they've paid, to receive the exact same Medicare benefits[/b].
Add to that the fact that Medicare isn't free. A monthly Medicare premium is subtracted from your SS check, and there's a 20% co-pay. Prescriptions aren't covered. Many seniors buy an additional Medigap insurance policy to pay that 20% Medicare doesn't cover and for prescription coverage.
Not exactly, you're ignoring the duration of those "exact same" (sic) Medicare benefits.
Since longevity is positively correlated with income and wealth, the middle class - and more so the UMC and the wealthy enjoy, on average, a longer duration of Medicare benefits than do the working class and the poor.
Not exactly, you're ignoring the duration of those "exact same" (sic) Medicare benefits.
Since longevity is positively correlated with income and wealth, the middle class - and more so the UMC and the wealthy enjoy, on average, a longer duration of Medicare benefits than do the working class and the poor.
If the working poor live to claim even one year of Medicare they come out ahead.
Not exactly, you're ignoring the duration of those "exact same" (sic) Medicare benefits.
Since longevity is positively correlated with income and wealth, the middle class - and more so the UMC and the wealthy enjoy, on average, a longer duration of Medicare benefits than do the working class and the poor.
They've also paid significantly more for them. And since better health is highly correlated to income level, they're significantly less likely to need costly medical care for chronic choice-induced illnesses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
