I still don't get how middle class republicans complain about tax hikes for the rich

nalej

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
8,831
Reputation
715
Daps
13,908
Reppin
Seatown
They hate the president so much they are blind to the fact that this will greatly help our country and themselves. I mean it's easy to know why rich republicans don't like the hikes but middle and lower class ones just reaffirms are ignorant they are.

Someone give a legit argument to why these ninkumpoops feel like this.
 

zerozero

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
6,866
Reputation
1,250
Daps
13,494
300px-George_h_w_bush_lee_atwater_jam.JPG


cause the GOP melded their upper class agenda to the social conservative agenda and said the only people who need handouts are black people

(and hoodwinked everybody with trickle down)
 

marcuz

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
55,000
Reputation
12,801
Daps
157,156
their argument is that it's possible to become that 1% someday. they consider it taxing success. they believe those who receive social welfare trumps those who receive corporate welfare. they believe ebt/section 8 is a bigger waste than our "defense" budget.
 

nalej

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
8,831
Reputation
715
Daps
13,908
Reppin
Seatown
so basically they live in fantasy world. I guess that makes sense according to their other beliefs.
 

zerozero

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
6,866
Reputation
1,250
Daps
13,494
I think the Dems can capture some of these guys this decade
 

Brown_Pride

All Star
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
6,416
Reputation
785
Daps
7,887
Reppin
Atheist for Jesus
no joke i had this convo with a die hard republican making 150k a year (him and his wife).
I told him the break point was 250 so he wouldn't even see his taxes go up, like he thought. Basically it came down to him saying that and i quote, "someday i HOPE to be making millions a year so why would i want to vote against myself."
.....

what's funny is the argument discussion dabbled in Ayn Rand territory and he himself said, "i don't see why people shouldn't do what's best for them..."

So when I came back at him and said "you just got through saying you needed to do what was best for you, in what way is raising taxes on people that are NOT YOU while lowering your taxes NOT good for you? More importantly why are you defending something you're not?"

I think he kinda saw the light a little when i threw, "hows that Hopey-changy-thing" workin for you? after he said he hoped would be rich.


I've said it before and i'll say it again you gotta hand it to these rich b*stards.
They literally have poor people defending their money. The grind is strong.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,033
Reputation
4,736
Daps
66,906
They hate the president so much they are blind to the fact that this will greatly help our country and themselves. I mean it's easy to know why rich republicans don't like the hikes but middle and lower class ones just reaffirms are ignorant they are.

Someone give a legit argument to why these ninkumpoops feel like this.

Read these two articles from the guardian, I posted excerpts and bolded some important parts, but your attitude is exactly the problem, you're not understanding them: Why working-class people vote conservative | Society | The Guardian

the guardian said:
Similarly for liberty. Americans and Britons all love liberty, yet when liberty and care conflict, the left is more likely to choose care. This is the crux of the US's monumental battle over Obama's healthcare plan. Can the federal government compel some people to buy a product (health insurance) in order to make a plan work that extends care to 30 million other people? The derogatory term "nanny state" is rarely used against the right (pastygate being perhaps an exception). Conservatives are more cautious about infringing on individual liberties (eg of gun owners in the US and small businessmen) in order to protect vulnerable populations (such as children, animals and immigrants).

In sum, the left has a tendency to place caring for the weak, sick and vulnerable above all other moral concerns. It is admirable and necessary that some political party stands up for victims of injustice, racism or bad luck. But in focusing so much on the needy, the left often fails to address – and sometimes violates – other moral needs, hopes and concerns. When working-class people vote conservative, as most do in the US, they are not voting against their self-interest; they are voting for their moral interest. They are voting for the party that serves to them a more satisfying moral cuisine. The left in the UK and USA should think hard about their recipe for success in the 21st century.


Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican | World news | guardian.co.uk

the guardian said:
So why do poor people vote Republican? The first thing to note is that most of them don't. In 2008 73% of those who earned less than $15,000, 60% of those who earned between $15,000 and $30,000, and 55% of those who earned between $30,000 and $50,000 voted for Obama. This year 57% of those earning less than $36,000 plan to vote Democrat as do 50% of those with a high school diploma or less. Even in deeply conservative Mississippi the overwhelming majority of the poor voted for Obama.

The question of why poor people vote Republican is not simply an issue of income but primarily race and partly region and gender. Poor people may be more likely to vote Democrat; poor white people are not. In 2008 McCain won a slim majority (51%) of white Americans who earn less than $50,000 (this is just below the national median income which is not poor but the only figure available from exit polls that breaks down votes down by race and income), while Obama won a whopping majority of non-whites in the same category (86%). Asked in May which candidate would do more to advance their family's economic interests middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions gave Romney a 26 point lead over Obama.

But that support is less pronounced among white women than white men and is not uniform across the country. In Mississippi 84% of whites who earn below $50,000 backed McCain: in Vermont 70% in the same category voted for Obama. Of the nine states that backed Obama in 2008 in three less affluent whites went for McCain, in five they backed Obama and one was a tie. In all of them non-whites voted Democrat.

"In Republican states, rich and poor have similar views on social issues," wrote Andrew Gelman, Lake Kenworthy and Yu-Sung Su in a paper, Income inequality and partisan voting in the United States, in the Social Science Quarterly. "But in Democratic states, the rich are quite a bit more socially liberal than the poor. Factors such as religion and education result in a less clear pattern of class-based voting than we might expect based on income in- equality alone."............


Finally, as Weaver's circumstances illustrate, poverty is not necessarily a permanent state. People fall in and climb out of it. Americans are particularly reluctant to describe themselves as even working class let alone poor. A Pew survey in 2008 revealed that 91% believe they are either middle class, upper-middle class or lower-middle class. Relatively few claim to be working class or upper class, intimating more of a cultural aspiration than an economic relationship. Amy Pezzani, the executive director of the Larimer county food bank in Colorado, explained that politicians are reluctant to refer to "the poor" and "poverty" because it turns low-income voters off. "People who find themselves in these situations don't want to consider themselves poor. They're more likely to refer to themselves as the 'struggling middle class'.



In a report from Minnesota earlier this year the New York Times examined the growing number of people who were simultaneously dependent on government aid and against more government spending. "Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it," it concluded. "But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age."

In a country where social mobility is assumed – even if it has in fact stalled – and class consciousness is week the poor may vote in the interests of an imagined, but not necessarily imaginary future, rather than solidarity based on shared economic hardships. A Gallup poll in 2005 showed that while only 2% of Americans described themselves as "rich", 31% thought it very likely or somewhat likely they would "ever be rich". No doubt that figure will have dropped since the crisis but it doubtless remains high.
 

nalej

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
8,831
Reputation
715
Daps
13,908
Reppin
Seatown
appreciate the excerpts but they don't change my attitude on what I said. In fact it just reaffirms what I was thinking. The last part is exactly what I said.

"In a country where social mobility is assumed – even if it has in fact stalled – and class consciousness is week the poor may vote in the interests of an imagined, but not necessarily imaginary future, rather than solidarity based on shared economic hardships. "
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,033
Reputation
4,736
Daps
66,906
appreciate the excerpts but they don't change my attitude on what I said. In fact it just reaffirms what I was thinking. The last part is exactly what I said.

"In a country where social mobility is assumed – even if it has in fact stalled – and class consciousness is week the poor may vote in the interests of an imagined, but not necessarily imaginary future, rather than solidarity based on shared economic hardships. "

I mean the part about calling them idiots. They've just bought deeper into the American dream than others (31% of Americans think they'll be rich someday), but at the same time, they place a higher emphasis on their moral values. Democrats oppose them.

But I honestly think you should read at least the entire second article. Because for a lot of people, they don't see the difference that Democrats are supposedly bringing about. So if they don't see it, then those moral values are likely to weigh a lot higher. Further, I highlighted a bunch of people just don't want government help at all, regardless of the fact that it's in their interest. :manny:
 
Top