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

The left certainly hates reason. For such an anti-religious bunch of people, they seem awfully blind to how much their own beliefs and actions mirror those of religious fundamentalism. Do as you're told. Ignore the contradictions. Don't ask questions. Judge everyone who's different from you.

 

Oh really and where does the term voodoo economics come from? It comes from a economists description of right wing economics, do some research on the matter and get back to me.

 

Well Sweden has made significant welfare reforms but remains but high public investment country, it just does it smartly. The Baltic states, and Czech Republic all start with a lower GDP, cost of living and wages, making it easier for them to compete, and Ireland was a right wing basket case that over reached itself.

Im only staying along the lines of the OP, don't shoot the messenger, but youre right this shouldn't be about race except that conservatives make it so as in the case of this OP.

Indeed theres no possibility of a welfare without being competitive. Europe has long recognised that. But the welfare is also the reason we are so competitive, and the competitive welfare states of the EU have a standard of living the envy of the world and less income inequality. These states are the model for the world and the future of mankind.

The conservative view, that minimal government, welfare and taxes is a scheme designed only in their interests and will bring the west to the realms of the third world.

 

Hmmmm sounds like pretty much every Conservative who posts here on PF, except that they claim to be religious.

 

The term actually came from Bush senior; not an economist.

May I suggest you take your own advice about that research thing?

 

Oh really ? Tell us more about what he was referring to....

 

I don't need to do the research, I knew the origin of the phrase. You didn't and had the gall to tell someone to do research on something as if you were some sort of expert, when you were totally ignorant about what you were talking about.

I realize that's not uncommon on this forum, but if you insist on being ignorant, at least don't be so arrogant about it.

 

LOL, youre getting prisy about the an economist vs GHW Bush? LOL.

Oh all right Ill tell you since you, as a conservative are unaware.

It refers to;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Voodoo+economics


So much for the conservative tax cutting mantra.

 

I'm not getting "prissy," I'm merely pointing out that you were wrong on where the phrase came from and at the same time tried to correct some one else.

It's not being prissy to enjoy pointing out ignorance, it's what I do!

The lesson for you should be not to try to correct people when you know nothing.

 

First, welfare states do not make you competitive, it is a cost, and it's why the large European nations are about $12,000 or more per capita less productive than the U.S.

Second, the standard of living is depleting and the reason it's depleting is because Europe's savings are depleting. It is a game of diminishing returns, with each generation destined for less and less of the benefit, but more and more of the debt.

It has to be understood that Economic cycles can outlast human lifetimes, you can spend your entire life enjoying something that simply cannot be sustained. At some point, the bills come due. There's a good possibility you'll be dead before that happens if you were the first or second generation to receive the benefit, but each after will feel the weight of your indulgence. A weight that just steadily grows at each generation insists on getting the same deal as the generation before them.

No, the future of Mankind more evokes Hong Kong who managed to reach a western-like lifestyle, with far less in the way of welfare.

Botswana, once the 3rd poorest nation on earth, didn't become a middle-income nation by following a European model, they got where they are by judging everything on a cost curve and running budgetary surpluses.

For a century and a half we had minimal Government and enjoyed the highest standard of living per citizen that existed at the time, even after Prussia began experimenting with what we call today the welfare state.

We were successful, becoming the worlds largest economy by 1870, because we were de facto the world's largest free trade zone.

Hong Kong itself is essentially a microcosm of what we once were, and if we had any sense, we would re-embrace it.

 

Indeed it is a cost, as are all investments. Indeed the european nations received some 12000 less in per capita gdp, but we gain in other ways, the income disparity is much less while the competitiveness and happiness index of the largest and most efficient investors in people across europe make these countries the envy of the world.

The standard of living is depleting everywhere across the developed world. This is natural function of increasing resource demand and an aging population, which would happen whatever system we put in place and is a natural outcome of our success, not an argument for laissez - fair economics.

Yes indeed and what of it? All investments must be paid for. The welfare state brings happiness and support to the greatest number of people in history, it protects families and ensures entrepreneurs can try and fail without making their families destitute.

And such claims as the sky is falling in on the welfare states are sheer balderdash, the worlds best economic performers for decades are also the worlds most generous welfare states.

Hong Kong is more of city state that benefited from local geo politics, a huge supply of cheap labour and considerable public investment in housing and industrial planning. Try comparing Hong Kong as a city with other cities and see how you get on. HK has huge inequality, and boasts a pitiful minimum wage and has half the population in public housing and industry controlled by a small circle of rich tycoons. This huge wealth gap has forced the state to intervene in a number of areas to alleviate the suffering.

Botswana is a curious example, with a minimally diversified economy and huge unemployment it may be good in African terms but thats about it, without significant public investment and planning as all the economies who have moved up a level show, it has little prospect of achieving the same feat.

All the worlds welfare states enjoy and encourage free trade, with important regulations and work standards included,while the lives that people lived in the 1870's are incomparable with what has been achieved since with the welfare state in every sphere of life. Moreover the world of the 1870 in terms of population and available resource is also incomparable and there's not a single normal human being on earth who would wish to return us to those days of minimal government.

And HK, like Singapore indeed, is nothing to shout about, a good place for the rich indeed, who keep more of their assets, but that's about it. Indeed the microcosm concept you allude to is interesting, can you compare the microcosm of small city/ states to nations? Perhaps because Singapores own recent leader has compared his own state poorly to the wealthy nations cities you should think again;

http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=39283

 

So when you said, ""You are inherently bad because of what you are. And you must feel guilty.".............is this an excellent job of explaining how you don't actually understand liberal values are?

 

What does "Rich" in the title of your thread have to do with it?

Why would any sensible Low-Mid class White Male Vote for the Democrats?

Because the modern crop of Neo-Liberal Democrats are as much Corrupt Corp Crony Statists as anything else, there are a huge number of Corp Execs making literally Million$! from the Administrations bailouts of their mismanaged companies in sickening multimillion dollar Exec Bonuses while the futures of the common American's are mortgaged in new National Debt to Bail them out!

It is the Low-Mid Income Americans, of ALL Races and Genders who are getting screwed by Mordred!

-