Who do poor white Americans usually vote for?

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by GJJG2012

Maybe you heard something I didn't, but have you ever heard a Republican candidate say they wanted to help the poor? Most Dems don't care about non-bribers either, they just keep it a secret, where Reps are glad to list the groups they hate.

How about a party with no hate, the Libertarian Party? They're the 3rd largest & fastest growing party. They are for the 100% equally. Bribes don't work as they care about peace & freedom more than money.
They always side with the majority, in a way that doesn't harm the rest. lp dot org/

When did Republicans make a list of groups that they "supposedly" hate? And by the way, pointing out the facts about any group is not akin to hatred.

[SoloforLife]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

A huge fraction of poor white Americans vote against their economic self-interest and vote Republican. The Republicans win them over on fringe issues that simply don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Gun control. Abortion rights. Flag burning. Immigration. School prayer. Pledge of Alliegence in public schools. Meanwhile, the wealthy who control the party offshore their jobs, allow H1B visa people in to displace American employees, and keep taxes on the wealthy lowest in the first world by opposing anything that would benefit the white working poor. It's brilliant political strategy. There aren't enough affluent people to vote in the Republican agenda so they sucker stupid poor white people to vote for them with these fringe issues.

This /\

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

A huge fraction of poor white Americans vote against their economic self-interest and vote Republican. The Republicans win them over on fringe issues that simply don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Gun control. Abortion rights. Flag burning. Immigration. School prayer. Pledge of Alliegence in public schools. Meanwhile, the wealthy who control the party offshore their jobs, allow H1B visa people in to displace American employees, and keep taxes on the wealthy lowest in the first world by opposing anything that would benefit the white working poor.

How odd you say that. Because Democrats support those things, too: Wall Street, free trade, offshoring of jobs, massive illegal and legal immigration that takes away jobs and lowers wages, low taxes for the wealthy. You really think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on these issues? I have news for you.

I'm affluent. I paid over $50k in Federal income taxes in 2014 and I'll be doing the same in 2015. Compared to any other first world country, my 24% effective tax rate is absurdly low. A 5%er in any other first world country would be paying about half. I'm happy to put the money in my pocket but I realize how the system is rigged against poor white people.

What's so great about paying more taxes if the government just wastes the money? Estimates are that the government spends $350 billion a year on "fraud, waste and abuse." Do you really think that paying more taxes would eliminate poverty? Bring more affordable health care? This government is completely corrupt. Just look at Solyndra or Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac -- crony capitalism that only benefits insiders and politicians. If I'm going to pay for something, I want to know that I'm getting my money's worth. Just throwing money around doesn't accomplish anything. Look at the Washington D.C. public schools. They are rolling in money, and the schools are some of the worst in the nation.

Originally Posted by TrafficCory

This attitude is summed up nicely by David Frum from an article in the Atlantic thusly;

"Remember that Republican voters care more about aligning government with their values of work and family than they care about cutting the size of government as an end in itself".

They actually care about both.

But work and family values -- yeah, they are kind of important.

Unless your model for a successful society is a single mother on welfare.

Originally Posted by greywar

Its weird reading all of this, and seeing the same nonsense.

Folks, Obama does not control spending. He quite literally does not control the purse strings.

Currently Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate. They control spending.

Wrong.

Did you ever take Civics? I guess not. The House passes a bill, sends it to the Senate, there is a conference committee, and then the final compromise bill is sent to the president for him to sign or veto. If he vetoes it, then there is an override if Congress has enough votes.

Ergo, the president DOES play a key role in controlling spending.

When Democrats had the Senate, their leader Harry Reid wouldn't even allow votes on Republican House bills.

The Democrats can only obstruct it, and if the Republicans want to they can use the nuclear option,and pass it anyways.

That's not until recently.

And Republicans haven't used that option, because they know that an Obama veto couldn't be overridden.

Republicans don't control two thirds of the Senate.

Try knowing what you're talking about -- I mean, just the basics -- it would help.

Did none of you study government in high school?

That's funny, coming from you.

You obviously didn't.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

And then you have plenty of people who don't want a Black President, and for that reason, didn't vote for him. It goes both ways. And why did you feel the need to bring that up?

Plenty of those same people would vote for Ben Carson, and any number of other black conservatives.

Originally Posted by greywar

Sure, something he has done exactly 5 times. The least amount of any president in over 100 years.

Tell you what, get him to veto it, and THEN its his fault. Sure they can vote on repealing the ACA 50 times, but gosh forbid they vote on something to have Obama veto it right?

The leader of the Senate from January 2007 to January 2013, Democrat Harry Reid, wouldn't allow any votes on the ACA.

BOTH the Senate and the House have to pass legislation in order for it to get to Obama.

So your "only five times" deflection is nonsense.

Harry Reid was making sure that Republican-initiated legislation would never be submitted to Obama.

And, as I said before, now that Republicans control both chambers, they don't have the two thirds needed to override an Obama veto.

You libs amaze me with your feeble and transparent attempts at deception.

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Plenty? Um, I don't think so besides Obama is half white. Most Republicans won't vote Democrat regardless of the race of the candidate. Obama got a good share of the white Democrat vote though.

Exactly.