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.
Well... "everybody benefitted" except probably for the people who depended on government services for various things and had their benefits reduced to deal with the rising deficit and the costs of war, or the people who'll have their taxes raised in the future to pay for the many years of "low-tax Government credit card spending," like what happened after Reagan's tax cuts + high spending equaling a big deficit and the first George having to renege on his promise not to raise taxes. You know... if you get a $50 a year tax cut but also a big cut in your subsidized-child care or school funding then you're not necessarily making out like a bandit.
Well... "everybody benefitted" except probably for the people who depended on government services for various things and had their benefits reduced to deal with the rising deficit and the costs of war, or the people who'll have their taxes raised in the future to pay for the many years of "low-tax Government credit card spending," like what happened after Reagan's tax cuts + high spending equaling a big deficit and the first George having to renege on his promise not to raise taxes. You know... if you get a $50 a year tax cut but also a big cut in your subsidized-child care or school funding then you're not necessarily making out like a bandit.
I agree with you about deficit spending and the war. This is where I gather neither party really cares. The problem with today's Republicans is they fail to realize that with tax cuts, spending cuts are a must. Part of being a conservative, is being fiscally responsible, something that I don't think anyone would associate with the Bush administration or the Republicans in congress.
As for the poor people. It is obvious there should be a safey net for those that truly need it. But there will always be a poor class. No system of government, or any political party can get rid of poverty. Throwing more money at social problems, as advocated by the Democrats hasn't yet cleaned up the inner cities, or brought anyone out of poverty. Democratic policies make the poor class, the dependant class.
I think welfare and social programs should be administered at the state level, with the Federal government largely left out of the loop.
Don't kind yourself taxes will go up with a democrats. The demcratic congression blueprint just published includes tax increases above just over 38.000 a year income. We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world which is driving companies to leave the NYSE and go to europe where they lowered taxes on corporations. The bluepint also leaves in place the AMT that has stated to effect middle income people more and more each year. The there is a proposal to increase the federal tax on gasoline by 50 cents a gallon;they say to discourage use but really to increase revenues.This is without many of the promised programs like the healthcare plan which they say will be paid for by employers that don't have plans;premiums;co-pays .deductables and cost savings because of the plan size. I also think that hospitals will want the deductable;co-pay up frant before hand because they will be cutting to the bone their budgets and can't affrod any non -payers.
We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world which is driving companies to leave the NYSE and go to europe where they lowered taxes on corporations.
Which brings up another point. Democrats will rail against corporations on behalf of the working man. But corporations provide jobs like it or not, the government doesn't. (As much as they'd like you to believe) It is in the best interest of everybody to keep corporate taxes low or else like Dave stated, they go elsewhere.
Traditionally, blue-collar workers voted Democratic, they were for social services and tended to join unions. After the 80's, this seems to have changed. The working class is leaning towards Republicans since then. They believe that tax cuts will avoid funding welfare programs for immmigrants and those too lazy to find a job; they are socially conservative and see Dems as some rich elites from the Coasts. So they vote for the GOP.
Is this true?
IMO Greg W had many good points--I can't do better.
I might add that I recall LBJ saying at the signing of some civil rights legislation 'there goes the South'. The voter stats. reflect his predicted results.
We have those who point to the fact that in the past decade or so we are much more prosperous. Examining the personal credit debt and overall consumer debt this is somewhat irrelevant. Considering the social decline the superficial materialism created, it appears detrimental.
We have those who point to the economic advantages of war, jobs etc. Great way to get a job. We see a Adm. who can't keep a healthy economy fighting a hot war of long duration.
We have many young people who know what has been instilled in them by others. They are anti-union, anti worker, anti guaranteed benefits and generally anti-social. They have rarely missed a meal--have had the security of others--and believe a great depression could not happen again and if it did momma or poppa would bail them out. If they have a sheepskin they imagine themselves superior and should not have to struggle any further. Some hire others to mow their lawn--physical effort is beneath them.
We have those who side with the corporate bigdomes saying they provide jobs--the Gov't. doesn't. Right, the corps. provide jobs, the ones that are left. I recall the warnings of past Presidents concerning the necessity of keeping big business and the military in the proper perspectives. I agree. If those that abuse the workers that built the company--avoid paying US taxes especially after their tax breaks--they should not be allowed to sell their goods in the US market if they outsource or move off-shore. The tail can not be allowed to wag the dog, period.
We have those that think a Repub. vote will assure they will be taxed less. If they are actually taxed less (which isn't always the case) their future generations will be strapped for life. Very considerate. All first world societies have a tax basis because it is necessary and civilized people demand the services we all need and desire. I know-- those lazy folks and dumbasses. Pay a visit to your local welfare offices, most will allow you to sit in. Keep your mouth shut and your ears open--you may learn much.
As a machine operator in Michigan I have watched for years as my Teamster brothers voted democrats into office. You would think they would look at how these politicians voted once they got to D.C. but they are just voting puppets of corrupt union power. I did watch as these politicians carved the manufacturing and auto workers up like a Thanksgiving day turkey. They couldnt back and sign NAFTA fast enough so they could come home with their little pork barrell projects and earmarks. Now I look up and the Teamsters is in full support of the freakin illegal immigrants who steal jobs and drive down wages because again they want their votes.
The Republicans just sit back and laugh
Ive worked in union and non union shops and organized labor is important because ownership will walk all over employees that have no power, everytime. The relationship between Unions and politicians has morphed into a greedy exploitive partnership that is killing the goose that lays the golden egg
Which brings up another point. Democrats will rail against corporations on behalf of the working man. But corporations provide jobs like it or not, the government doesn't. (As much as they'd like you to believe) It is in the best interest of everybody to keep corporate taxes low or else like Dave stated, they go elsewhere.
If you think your government doesn't provide jobs, go stand in line at the DMV.
There are hundreds of thousands of people employed solely by the government, whether that's local, state, or other. There are also organizations whose primary customer is the government.
what amazes me is that a lot of the blue-collar folks in the Rust Belt area voted for Reagan in the 80's, mainly due to moral issues, when the local economy was failing because of ultra-capitalist policies that basically shut down the factories and relocated them overseas. I dunno, does gay marriage or gun control matter to the point that you don't care if your jobs vanish and your social services are cut?
I wish it wasn't so, but in this economic environment I wouldn't put any stock in any private employers to provide me with the ability to put food on the table, college education for my children or retirement of any kind. Civil service is where it's at for better or worse, and not in disingenous talk of low taxes (funded by deficit spending..which equals oxymoron) by republicans for that matter.
Interesting post, Hindsight, and probably true for quite a few families. My view is that beyond what you state about the moral stuff, gun ownership freedoms is another strong consideration.
I also wonder about the historical aspects of Democratic party support. Do you think that their past support of Model Cities and School Busing as part of desegregation and the Equal Rights Amendment for women also might factor into their distate for the Democratic Party?
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.
