How can any rich white male vote for the Democratic party?

You would rather discuss me than the topic at hand....must be a boring topic.

 

Many do, because they have a social conscience and embrace the Christian ethos as articulated recently by Pope Francis, and Constitutionally mandated by the stricture to "promote the general welfare" whilst cognizant of the fact that all human systems are flawed. To whatever extent one party focuses upon that moral mission more effectively than the other, they'll choose it. (That, since 1947, the U.S. economy has grown at an average real rate of 4.35 percent under Democratic presidents and just 2.54 percent under Republicans indicates a personal self-interest, to be sure. Doing good whilst doing well is an attractive proposition.)


..................................................................................................................
They are not diverted by the inveterate whining about some imaginary, demonized "Liberal!" boogy man that festers in the minds of some, inflamed by radio entertainers as an essential pipe dream needed to sustain the fictional fancies of atheist Ayn Rand's pulp indoctrinations by which some are victimized.

The reality is that most enlightened, advanced nations on earth are all, demonstrably, capitalist/social welfare accommodations whilst the airy-fairy confection of their departed butt-fiend cult leader was amply disposed of by her desperate petitions for Social Security and Medicare benefits that a morally-responsible society granted to her.

One need not be fixated upon any ideology, distorted or otherwise, negatively or positively. Just choose what is shown to work best, rather than wallow in fantasy.

Why are the best-educated States with the highest quality of life overwhelmingly blue? Not because they are hamstrung by dogma, but because they're pragmatic.



.

 

Its interesting to me that so many in the 250 to 500 K income bracket still do support and vote democrat. I suppose it depends on where they live and what work they do. Those involved in higher education jobs, government admin jobs, and the legal profession are obvious culprits for liberal thinkers.

I have seen some very liberal white gentlemen write $10,000 checks quite casually. Some of the cost of living issues have a lot to do with where one lives too. If the person living in Smithville Arkansas clears 250 chances are they live a pretty affluent life compared to someone living in Upper East Side New York (where I would guess they would have to live in someone's shoe closet).

So this really breaks down to a more of a financial class issue. Who is rich? Who is poor? Why is the persons disposable income what it is?

If someone makes $20 K a year and spends $1000 a month on any one thing (food, clothing, shelter, transportation, communication), chances are they do not have a good grasp of budgeting. But the same accusation could be made of someone making $250 K who is financially strapped. This kind of problem is endemic in the US and crosses all income brackets. The assumption of the IRS is that people with very high incomes are better suited, and have more personal resources to fix their own budgets than people living at or below $50 K.

There should be exceptions made for small business people who employ 50 or more workers in the US (legal citizens of course), because one of their biggest expenses is payroll. They are also under stricter workplace regulations which create much higher business expenses. But there is a big difference (to me) between someone who makes their $250 K producing a US made product and someone who makes theirs litigating or investing.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-farm-subsidies-for-me-no-food-stamps-for-you

By now, anti-food stamp crusader Rep. Stephen Fincher is notorious for raking in millions in farm subsidies while misquoting the Bible in favor of deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But let's not forget that he's far from alone among House Republican in voting to take food from the poor while happily taking farm subsidies for himself.
Another Republican congresswoman who voted to make cuts to the food stamp program was Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. Her farm received more than $800,000 in Department of Agriculture subsidies from 1995-2012. In 2001, her farm received $135,482 in subsidies.
Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, who also voted to make cuts to the program, was a partner in Racota Valley Ranch, her family’s farm and previously had nearly a 17% stake through 2008. The farm received $3.4 million in subsidies from 1995-2012. The Environmental Working Group, which analyzes subsidy data, says the “estimated amount of subsidies attributed to Rep. Noem from 1995-2012 is $503,751.”
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, who claimed that the bill was about "how many families are lifted out of poverty and helped back on their feet," as if there was any possible way it would do that, got $200,000 in farm subsidies for a farm he co-owns with his father.
Evil. Disgusting. Heartless. There's really no way to exaggerate how awful these people are

 

Any rich white business owner logically wouldn't make sense to do it, they increase taxes and regulations on them to pay for welfare and socialist health care expenditures for the poor.

They have to be compassionate and bleeding heart rich white men to ever vote for the democrat party.

 

Because the Democratic party is just a front for bankers and industrialists, no different than the Republican party. All their populist rhetoric is just a facade, they both serve the same masters.

 

Talk about platitudes...

Anyway, just because humans are "varied and complicated" in certain ways does not mean they lack a shared set of fundamental traits and characteristics which one might call their "nature". That's how we're able to tell the difference between a human and a chimp in the first place.

 

That is what some angry old white guys keep telling us.

And its why Republicans are more and more marginalized.

 

Define rich...

I am in the highest bracket. No dependants few deductions. I vote democrat.

 

Touché! I've said that same thing before in terms of just avoiding chastisement, but I don't think I had ever really thought about it all the way through that thoroughly from the perspective of having your money actually taken away by the government. What does that say about the true nature of liberalism? It's a self-entitled bully mentality. "You either side with us voluntarily or we'll force you to side with us. But either way, you'll do what we tell you." Classic mob rule thuggery.

From a strategic standpoint, it makes perfect sense to be publicly liberal no matter who you are. Because if you'll notice, you're never expected to actually adhere to any of the things you say. You can be the most hateful person on the planet. You can be greedy and stingy and help no one but yourself. You can be as flagrantly racist, sexist, and bigoted as you desire, and no one will ever call you out on it as long as you say, "It's okay. I'm in the club. I'm a liberal." *wink wink nudge nudge*

Just a couple of weeks ago - right there in front of me in a public place - I heard a black liberal call somebody a "f-a-g-g-o-t ass white boy" because he hated them. Will this guy ever get called out for his racism and homophobia? Would any liberals on this forum even say anything if they heard such talk? You know the answer as well as I do. It's a resounding no. They'd just do what all the other people did who were sitting next to this guy when it happened. They'd either ignore it or try to suck up to him and reassure him that his bigotry is justified.

This is why Bill Maher can call Sarah Palin a "c-u-n-t" on national television and not be sexist. This is why Louis C.K. can call Trig Palin "retarded" and not be insensitive. This is why Jamie Foxx can do a Saturday Night Live monologue about killing white people and not be racist. This is why Michael Moore can get filthy rich selling victimhood, white guilt, male shame, and anti-capitalism to the "99%" and then go live in a multi-million dollar mansion in a gated, all-white community and not be a hypocrite.

Because all you have to do is say you're liberal and people will leave you alone. They'll even think you're a good person for doing nothing. Because liberalism is all about appearance. It doesn't matter what you're actually doing. It's only about how you look to others. Compare that to conservatism which is about integrity of character. It's about doing the right thing regardless of whether anyone sees it or not. The two are night and day.

 

You don't even know who makes up the Republican party. And that's a big part of the problem. Your only understanding of anything on the right comes through a distorted left wing filter. If you ask Hitler what the Jews are like, what do you honestly expect him to say?

I suppose anything that the left can guilt you for having. I'm not sure it's an actual number. Just an arbitrary, fluctuating concept based on feelings. Since, technically speaking, "rich" is a relative term anyway.

 

Typical pie in the sky liberal logic.....Maybe there can be unicorns in the work force as well.

 

Actually I have looked at the numbers- and angry white guys do make up a large segment of the Republican Party.

But I was not talking about the Republican Party- I was talking about this claim of yours

So it would certainly appear that liberalism deliberately seeks to burn caucasians, males, and people with money (successful people).

And I was pointing out once again that this is the narrative that angry white guys have been trying to sell since Obama first got elected.

 

Everyone is the people who apply the values. But you can't properly apply them if you don't understand them, can you?

You can tell anger by looking at numbers? Do tell!

 

Not that you 'meant' to deceive anyone but... the above is a lie, especially if you are talking about the extremism and abject intransigence of today's brand of "Conservative".

People know this almost intuitively, due to current events. So, I do wonder why you've stated the above. (Hmmm...)

 

Evidently a LOT of people are in denial about the things TODAY'S "Conservatism" leads to. I've seen people on the Right literally CHEERING about achieving the above (to include disenfranchising American voters).

A lot of political people on the Right are LYING about what their values and politics end up leading to. You see, they cannot be completely 'honest'... because they won't win elections (admitting to people that they've come to control and leech off of them, in various ways). You can bet that Conservatives LOVE to TALK about propping people up... but they'll rarely (if ever) do anything practical where it concerns the same.

 

yeah we saw how 2 terms of republican rule worked... your either with us or against us? trickle down economics, huge tax cuts for the rich...


.

 

No its quite accurate and real. Public investment, progressive taxation, welfare state etc means make the Western economies have an efficient workforce with a higher standard of living, more able to spend their money on consumer goods.

 

Except, not. The European States have less money across the board than we do, and the metrics for their standard of living are degrading, not rising.

Unemployment is over 50% for their young, with the work force stratified between them, and the old-time "insiders" who can't be let go due to labor laws, and who feel entitled to a larger and larger paycheck because they have more than a few dependents due to said unemployment among the young.

Their Governments keep asking for more and more money to provide the same benefits, or many times when they're on the cusp, or just in bankruptcy, less.

To put it short, what you detail has been demonstrated to being Faustian bargain, it provides some short term benefits that continually diminish, at the expense of long-term sustainability.

No country who has taken this path has struck a balance, they always have to cave into a liberalization of their economy, or face disintegration.

 

Indeed but Europe is a mixed bag and while there has been some reform but reform doesn't mean they're going down the conservative route any time soon, and what particular countries are you meaning?

Rich white men do indeed vote for the things I've mentioned whether or not you think its a road to ruin they think its worth the risk, in terms of employment and debt as you say indeed especially for places such as France, that provides long term benefits.

 

That is nothing more than voodoo economics and the reason the economy is so lousy now.

 

How can any independent thinking person vote for the dumbocrat party? The problem is we have more dumb people and people who can be bought than intelligent people. Thats what the dumbocrats count on.

 

But they are not "one of those white people". When Jim Carey says white people are the cause of all the problems in the world, he betters himself and can look down on other white people and feel great about themselves.

This is why the left hates the teachings of Christianity so much. It stands in the way of their hopes to condemn everyone with original sin and guilting them into abandoning reason and join the horde's narrative.

 

Sweden, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, and to some degree, Ireland.

I... what? What?!? Who said this was about race? What the hell man?

And is suffering all the way because of it.

It's a simple economic equation: They are consuming more in benefits than they are producing in wealth. To keep this consumption going, they continue to borrow against savings made in prior generations, which as each generation passes, continues to deplete, leaving them with less and less to borrow against, until they have nothing.

The choice at that point is either printing, or the shell-game Japan has devoted itself to in order to keep interest on their debt "sustainable". Neither of these things can continue on forever, especially if you are demographically shrinking.