:idea: The base of the Democratic Party are those who work for the government, especially the large public employee unions. Here in California, they're one of every seven workers. The base of the Republican Party are entrepreneurs and small business owners. Here in California, 70%......yes that's 70 effen percent of all state taxes are paid by small business owners. One party buys votes with other people's money, while the other party defends those who work and actually earn the money... As Walter Cronkite said, "That's the way it is."
Bill, I take no personal offense to rural Christians but in the 2004 election they mobilized like never before and truly did influence that election. I don't have a problem with them except that I don't agree with any philosophical group that would seek to impose their own will and moralities on other groups and my opinion is that the rural Christian evangelical right is all about that. At the very least I differ with their political philosophy. But I also disagree many times with the liberal far left as well and I wouldn't want their will imposed on me either.
Stu, I disagree. Moderates and liberals believe more in personal freedoms and choices while the conservative evangelical right thinks everybody else should do it their way and adopt their way of thinking.
HA! I don't believe that for a moment, a NY minute, a millisecond. The Libs esp want to control everything we do and think.
How do you impose free will and the ability to make choices on someone Terry? I know taxes can be a huge issue so I do watch that closely but otherwise where do the Dems restrict freedoms?
Dems have been on a campaign for most of my life to prevent any and all prayer in public places. Dems have attacked old institutions like the Boy Scouts, Dems have attacked even simple things like the pledge of allegiance. In all those instances they want it their way, no compromise.
MCG, you are distorting the picture. You are speaking of the "evangelical right" as being the essence of the republican party. That is as erroneous as speaking of the radical left as being the essence of the democratic party. You have carried this line of thinking to the point of claiming that the rural element of the republican party is the dominant voting block, which is as erroneous as saying that the urban dwelling, lower-earning element of the democratic party is its main voting block. The radical left is as unbending in its ideologies as the "evangelical right". That's a fact, Jack. Another error in your argument above is that you use the phrase "moderates and liberals" as if the only moderates were on the left side of the midpoint of the spectrum. I would venture an educated guess that the moderates on both sides of the spectrum are those who ultimately make the difference in elections. Their backgrounds are quite varied relating to education and socioeconomic strata, but they generally are people who think before they act. They believe in individual responsibility and accountability. They have certain beliefs which may not be in concert with their party's position, so they are more prone to look at the candidate first, regardless of party affiliation. I am describing myself as a moderate dem who has had big problems with my party's approach and attitude over the past 30-some years. There are people just like me on the other side of the midpoint who have problems with their party and who are prone to cross over in any given election. THAT's where presidential elections are won or lost.
:!: Great point, Sid. The last 5 presidential elections (20 years) have consistently seen polls that show about 48% of the voters want the Republicans, while 47% want the Democrats, no matter what. Its that 5% in the middle who're deciding these things...
I've been a crossover voter myself so I know where you are coming from Sid. I do understand there are moderates on both sides of midpoint....that's obvious.
That just isn't so MCG, the Christian groups have been much more mobilized in some previous elections. Now if you say they voted predominatly Republican they you would be right, but the most mobilized ever, no way.
MCG, Dems have been supportive of interventionist policies for as long as I've been around....from restricting free markets and otherwise supporting massive transfers/confiscations of wealth away from those that have been successful in their endeavors towards those that have not in many cases creating material disincentives. That, to me, seems as if it is far, far away from personal freedoms and choices and more their way of government intervention and forcing their views of the dominant role of government in our affairs as they wish them to be. Terry
Taxes should be more equally distributed but in that vein so should tax cuts. Sometimes it appears that only the very rich see the best tax cuts. I would prefer to see tax cuts embrace fully the middle ranges as well.
MCG, there is so much more......for generations the Dems have been supportive of massive amounts of government intrusion into our daily lives.....their prevailing view is that more and bigger government programs is the answer to all ills......I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with that position as would, imho, the framers of our Constitution. The role of government is to govern..... Re: taxes? Don't get me started. But, I will say that the notion of a tax cut that increases the nation's capital stock/investment capital and results in job creation is so much more than a tax cut for the wealthy....who gets the jobs? The rich don't need them, they already have them.....don't listen to them MCG, they're lying to you. Terry
Only people who pay taxes can get a tax cut. Poor people don't pay taxes and neither does the lower, or working middle class. 51% of the American people (the majority) pay no taxes at all. How can they get a tax cut? Years ago, I did my daughter's taxes for her. She and my grand-daughter had lived with me all year, paying no rent. While I had to pay thousands of dollars to the feds that year, beyond what they had already taken from my paychecks, she got thousands of dollars "back"; even though she hadn't paid more than a few hundred dollars in federal taxes all year. This is still true for all lower pay working families. Not only do they get back everything they paid to the feds, they're also given large amounts of rebates that they never paid in. How do we give the lower working families a "tax cut" when they're already getting back more money than they pay in? The facts are the top 1% pay 33% of all federal taxes and the top 10% pay most of the money that the federal government collects. Tax cuts for these groups translate directly into jobs and new opportunities for the working poor as this money circulates through the private sector. But what would happen if you give even MORE money (that they didn't earn) to the lowest groups? When I was a taxi driver in my youth, our busiest day of the month was welfare check day. The bars and saloons were filled with people until 2:00 in the morning, then the jails filled up. We hauled people from their homes to the bars, then from the bars and city jails back to their homes all night long. My shift ended at 6:00 AM and that's about when the carnage would stop as people had to get their children ready for school and all of it...ALL of it, was paid for by the taxpayers. Think about it. ................TP
I can't add much but my support to what the Phantom and Buckeye T have said. When less than half the people pay taxes already it's hard to give them a tax cut already. And if you give a tax cut how can you not give it to the group that pays 33% of the taxes? Somehow MCG your logic escapes me.
Wow....I consider myself upper middle class at best and I pay $35,000.00 per year in Federal taxes alone not to mention the 4.64% Michigan State tax, FICA and any sales taxes that I incur during the year. I would think I have a right to get excited when all the tax cut talk is just about those wealthy estate tax cuts, etc.
re: estate tax This is the cruelest tax of all. First of all, it doesn't affect the richest Americans. They have tax shelters that you've never heard of. Sen. Edward Kennedy, who makes $millions per year as part owner of an oil company, pays almost nothing in taxes on his Hyannasport properties, and the family gets to keep this property generation after generation without paying inheritance taxes on it. How is this possible? Hyannasport and all the other properties of the coastal rich in Massachusetts was grandfathered in so that the laws don't apply to it. Who writes the laws? Edward Kennedy and his family... Secondly, the estate taxes hit working families the hardest. If your family has a family business, like a farm, store, or restaurant, they will almost certainly have to sell off that business in order to pay the federal death taxes, because keeping the business would not be worth the expense. In this area, I have watched as my old home town, Chino, California as it has grown from a tiny cowtown of 5,000 to two cities, Chino and Chino Hills, each with more than 100,000 people, because the dairy farmers were forced to sell off their properties when the old farmers died. The land under each farm was valued at millions, so the children owed millions in estate taxes... The federal estate taxes bring in less than 1% of all the money that the federal government collects. Is this kind of cultural and economic destruction worth it? Remember, all of this property was already taxed again and again when the owner was alive. Fewer than 1% of all American millionaires inherited their money. They earn it every day, by working for it. Estate taxes are part of the politics of jealousy that have never done anything but harm to our country. Its time to abolish them and find real solutions to our problems. There's no such thing as people/families who are "too successful." They're not the ones with the problems...
MCG you are certainly in the top 25% of all income earners in the US, maybe pretty close to top 10 %. I'll bet a good 1/4 or more of the US barely earns what you pay in taxes. I'd look up the stats, but I'm too lazy. I really don't know where you can draw the line and say if you earn X dollars you are rich, people who earn 500K a year usually don't consider themselves rich. Terry
Terry, I'm pretty sure I don't make the top ten percent because those guys are always happy with whatever tax cut has been trotted out by the Reps.