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.
I have a sister who is married to a college professor. It's amazing that she agreed to marry a white man. As I recall, the only reason they got married was so she could get on his lucrative health insurance. She has barely worked since her kids were born, 25-27 years ago. They live a very comfortable life style. I do remember her griping to me once about how much in taxes she paid and trying to think of a way to lower them. I guess she couldn't connect those dots. I said wait a minute. Don't you lefties love higher taxes? She got mad and refused to talk about it.
Oh, I suppose it could be from a sense of social responsibility. Republicans aren't always noted for their concern about the welfare of society as a whole or maintaining a healthy environment. They're more about personal greed and maintaining their status. That could be a concern for some successful people.
yet republicans and conservatives give more to charity then liberals and Dems, makes what you said not really accurate. It's more accurate to say that Repubcs and Conservative dont trust or think the Government should be doing it that it is the private individuals/business or charity who should be helping. Dems seem more interested in spending OTHER peoples money over their own. Which can be seen in the NIMBY you see in so many liberal wealthy areas. All for the poor just keep them away from me.
Oh, I suppose it could be from a sense of social responsibility. Republicans aren't always noted for their concern about the welfare of society as a whole or maintaining a healthy environment. They're more about personal greed and maintaining their status. That could be a concern for some successful people.
Of course there are large differences comparing local vs national voting. Locally one might need to be more fiscally conservative. But nationally as the federal systems can create new money, voting Dem might be a way to improve on ones wealth. After all, social spending tends to trickle up.
I understand why someone on welfare would vote for Democrats because they want the assistance. And I get why college students living off their parents would. And I see why some working class people would if they're seeking better benefits and a higher minimum wage.
But, nowadays, a massive portion of the Democratic base is made up of wealthy elites. If someone considers themselves to be financially successful through their decisions and hard work, what reason do they have to vote for Democrats other than shame and guilt for being successful? Shame over the perceived bad state of the environment, race, poverty, history, housing, etc, and guilt for somehow believing they're at least partly responsible for the problem and fully responsible for the fix.
My brother lives in the wealthy Pacific Palisades of LA which is deep blue. Not too long ago local Councilman Mike Bonin wanted to move 1400 homeless from downtown LA to the Will Rogers Beach parking area where services might better be provided. Bonin view was the wealthy needed to share some of the burden of housing the homeless and Pacific Palisades shouldn't be excluded.
Well you can imagine how that idea went down. 1400 of downtown LA finest homeless living 5 minutes away from neighborhoods where homes start at 2 million? Not a chance. 25k signatures were collected and the Mike Bonin's plan shut down hard.
The wealthy are more than happy to support programs for the homeless as long as said programs don't affect them.
yet republicans and conservatives give more to charity then liberals and Dems, makes what you said not really accurate. It's more accurate to say that Repubcs and Conservative dont trust or think the Government should be doing it that it is the private individuals/business or charity who should be helping. Dems seem more interested in spending OTHER peoples money over their own. Which can be seen in the NIMBY you see in so many liberal wealthy areas. All for the poor just keep them away from me.
Democratic policies take the social good into account way more than Republican policies. Charities arise to fill gaps that poor government social policies don't address. For one example: I'd much rather pay taxes to support a truly robust national public school system than make donations to a local nonprofit daycare. Why should programs like that depend on the unpredictable generosity of strangers? We'd have much better national outcomes if a Democratic policy such as the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act were adopted.
I'd much rather pay taxes to support a truly robust national public school system than make donations to a local nonprofit daycare. Why should programs like that depend on the unpredictable generosity of strangers?
It sounds good in vague terms.
But I think the conflict arises when you look at the fine print.
Government involvement comes with strings. They can't help themselves.
You want funding, you now have government's claws in you, and they can shuffle their 'guidance' and 'conditions' which may not align with the school's parents and community. Policies being pushed by people no where near your school district or demograph .
Pubs will do this too,...so for everyone's sake it may be best to minimize government involvement.
But I think the conflict arises when you look at the fine print.
Government involvement comes with strings. They can't help themselves.
You want funding, you now have government's claws in you, and they can shuffle their 'guidance' and 'conditions' which may not align with the school's parents and community. Policies being pushed by people no where near your school district or demograph .
Pubs will do this too,...so for everyone's sake it may be best to minimize government involvement.
There are some areas where government involvement is the key to securing the best outcomes, precisely *because* of the strings. Private philanthropy is fine for some things but programs that are necessary but not "sexy" don't attract big donors. And of course big donors often have their own strings attached and institutions competing for these funds have to compromise or worse.
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.
