Why Do You Vote Democrat?

[Cherokeekid88]

I myself am Republican, Not because I was raised to be so, but because I chose to educate myself on how I think the economy works. For all you non republicans, why do you believe that the democratic way is best suited for this country? I know that there are different views on what actually is a democrat, but tell me specifics in why? Here is what I can understand...to me, this seems like common sense......
Most people(non republicans) believe that the wealthy SHOULD pay more in taxes....(because they have more, they should pay more) Well, lets look at it like this. You make $40,000.00 a year and you pay 20% in taxes....thats $8000.00. You make $100,000.00 a year and pay 20% in taxes...thats $20,000.00. Now I know that Obama thinks that 250k should be the cutoff and afte that, you are targeted as "rich", but this is to make the math a little easier. You think that the person making 100k a year should pay 30% or 40% in taxes? Why should that person be punished for success? especially if that person owns a business and provides jobs to oridnary/everyday people. Because if you tax the wealthy, they spend less. they spend less, we lose jobs.
Anytime anyone asks me why I vote republican, I ask them one question. "when is the last time that you worked for a poor person?"

The wealthy are the ones that buy ferrari's, lambos, have huge houses built, buy boats, spend lots on dinners and partys, which all comes back to the middle class. who invests billions in the stock market? The wealthy.

I know that redistribution of wealth is more of a socialistic view (I guess) but I think it is so worthless that people actually believe that the wealthy should be taxed more hoping that is some way, that money will get to them....for what? what did you do? work your @$$ off for little or nothing? what about people who go to school for 10 years and become a doctor and make millions and work 7 days a week saving peoples lives, should you get a piece of their pie?
I understand that there are people who need help and some have no other options when it comes to providing for their families or just for themselves...but trying to blame rich people for your problems and that somehow you deserve what they have is obsurd.
For all you that are democrats, explain to me your side of the story....

 

[bluejeepkid]

I generally side republican. Mostly because i, as an American that likes to live "free" and do what I "want" feel that republicans for the most part want the same things I do. I however don't like either candidate this term so I won't be voting. I think both are terrible representations of their respective parties. I also think we should go back to having the possibility of having a pres/vice pres from different parties I think that would keep thugs much more even and as a whole country, we'd be better off.

 

[Boatwrench]

For all you non republicans, why do you believe that the democratic way is best suited for this country?

Some of the crowning achievements that made this country prosperous would not have been built if we relied on republican politicians to fund. The Tennesse Valley Authority that brought jobs, electricity and flood control. The cheap electricity allowed businesses to prosper. Hoover Dam, more electricty for southern California's aircraft manufacturing plants. The Golden Gate Bridge & San Francisco Bay Bridges were built during the depression also. The California Aqueduct System allowing a steady supply of water to the central valley farmers making California the bread basket of the world at the time the aqueduct opened. The Alaska Pipeline was <edit> privately funded<edit>, built & completed during a republican administration but was started late in the Johnson administration <edit> to tap into a US Navy oil reserve<edit>. Providing 10% of the nations oil supply.

The Federal Interstate System. Republican President Eisenhower proposed it but he wouldn't have gotten it through congress without Lyndon Johnson & Sam Rayburn.

NASA. Under a demorcratic president NASA launched the race to the moon spurned an interest in science which fueled the technology boom we are living today.

Labor Laws. Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 was enacted during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a democrat. The 8 hour work day, two day weekends and the other "perks" that us younger folks take for granted would not have been possible without this act.

Just a few. But here is something really important to consider... neither party has your best interest in mind.

BTW: I am registered as "Undeclared" because of the last sentence I wrote above.

 

[old_man]

Just for your info, the pipeline was a private venture as I remember.

 

[Boatwrench]

Corrected. Thanks Tom.

 

[Cherokeekid88]

Some of the crowning achievements that made this country prosperous would not have been built if we relied on republican politicians to fund. The Tennesse Valley Authority that brought jobs, electricity and flood control. The cheap electricity allowed businesses to prosper. Hoover Dam, more electricty for southern California's aircraft manufacturing plants. The Golden Gate Bridge & San Francisco Bay Bridges were built during the depression also. The California Aqueduct System allowing a steady supply of water to the central valley farmers making California the bread basket of the world at the time the aqueduct opened. The Alaska Pipeline was <edit> privately funded<edit>, built & completed during a republican administration but was started late in the Johnson administration <edit> to tap into a US Navy oil reserve<edit>. Providing 10% of the nations oil supply.

The Federal Interstate System. Republican President Eisenhower proposed it but he wouldn't have gotten it through congress without Lyndon Johnson & Sam Rayburn.

NASA. Under a demorcratic president NASA launched the race to the moon spurned an interest in science which fueled the technology boom we are living today.

Labor Laws. Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 was enacted during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a democrat. The 8 hour work day, two day weekends and the other "perks" that us younger folks take for granted would not have been possible without this act.

Just a few. But here is something really important to consider... neither party has your best interest in mind.

BTW: I am registered as "Undeclared" because of the last sentence I wrote above.

I understand everything you have written, but was that under democratic law or just a "just so happened to happen with them in office"
But I am just wondering from an economical stand point what democrats see fit as a way of society. I just don't see how trickle down economics would work? (again, i think this is more of a socialism thing but still far away from a republican POV) but about the comment about NASA, is that really and Demo/repub counter? seems more of a technological urge more than an economical one.

 

[rockclimber]

what exactly is 'democratic law'?

 

[Cherokeekid88]

what exactly is 'democratic law'?

well, if you want technical, its probably not a real thing, but if it was brought in by a democratic president...basically saying " All those examples above me were examples brought in by the democratic party...so to me, that is a democratic law.

This is besides the point.

 

[cracker]

This thread is lame....

Most important fact out of this thread:

But here is something really important to consider... neither party has your best interest in mind.

:conceited

 

[Darky]

I however don't like either candidate this term so I won't be voting.

Then don't vote major party. Research some of the other candidates and vote for the guy you think is best suited for the job. Too many Americans fall into the red/blue trap. There's more than two parties out there. Maybe if we started getting some of the other players in, we'd see a more balanced political system.

The Tennesse Valley Authority that brought jobs, electricity and flood control. The cheap electricity allowed businesses to prosper. Hoover Dam, more electricty for southern California's aircraft manufacturing plants. The California Aqueduct System allowing a steady supply of water to the central valley farmers making California the bread basket of the world at the time the aqueduct opened.

Just a few. But here is something really important to consider... neither party has your best interest in mind.

Not every major undertaking is a good thing though. The Central Valley farmers have ruined their land with to much irrigation. The drainage is apparently crappy throughout the area causing the water to just sit there and leech salt out of the dirt and then redeposit it on the ground. They're essentially salting their own fields. But then that's not exactly their fault entirely. The Bureau of Reclamation has been selling them such heavily subsidized water that it would cost them too much to install more efficient irrigation. That heavily subsidized water also made it too hard for farmers in the east to compete so they either get subsidized by the gov't or go out of business. All the while, the contracts that they signed to pay back the initial investment (interest free, mind you) will never get paid back, costing the CA taxpayer even more to pay for the farmers to get cheap water.

The dams of the TVA and many other such large dams drowned thousands of square miles of habitat and will also never be paid back since the electricity is so heavily subsidized. Dams like Hoover are rapidly silting up and will require billions, if not trillions, to clean up so they can continue to serve their purposes of generating power and storing water. Essentially, many of these works that were so beneficial at the time will only cost many times more to fix, replace, or dismantle once they become useless.

Most of these were built not to help the people, but to appease special interests and get themselves voted back into office. naive and idealistic though he may have been, Jimmy Carter could see that. That's why he tried to get a good number of them blocked or stopped when he took office.

I just don't see how trickle down economics would work?

Trickle down economics would actually be a Republican ideology...give tax cuts to the rich so they spend more and create more jobs...

 

[rockclimber]

Trickle down economics would actually be a Republican ideology...give tax cuts to the rich so they spend more and create more jobs...

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

 

[JohnX]

While there are flaws to both sides of this thread, I do believe in what the original thought was here. EVERYONE should pay x% taxes. If you make more, you pay more, but you should not have to pay a different percentage than anyone else. It would be very easy for me to say I want to pay a lower percentage since I make less money, but how exactly would that be fair?

 

[seanR]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Trickle down economics does not work, they keep it all and there is nothing to trickle down.

 

[Sardog1]

But here is something really important to consider... neither party has your best interest in mind.

Amen brother!

To me it really boils down to voting for the one you dislike the least. I am really put off by the negative campaign adds and think that political adds should be banned from the media.

 

[kmanxj5050]

I myself am Republican, Not because I was raised to be so, but because I chose to educate myself on how I think the economy works. For all you non republicans, why do you believe that the democratic way is best suited for this country? I know that there are different views on what actually is a democrat, but tell me specifics in why? Here is what I can understand...to me, this seems like common sense......
Most people(non republicans) believe that the wealthy SHOULD pay more in taxes....(because they have more, they should pay more) Well, lets look at it like this. You make $40,000.00 a year and you pay 20% in taxes....thats $8000.00. You make $100,000.00 a year and pay 20% in taxes...thats $20,000.00. Now I know that Obama thinks that 250k should be the cutoff and afte that, you are targeted as "rich", but this is to make the math a little easier. You think that the person making 100k a year should pay 30% or 40% in taxes? Why should that person be punished for success? especially if that person owns a business and provides jobs to oridnary/everyday people. Because if you tax the wealthy, they spend less. they spend less, we lose jobs.
Anytime anyone asks me why I vote republican, I ask them one question. "when is the last time that you worked for a poor person?"

The wealthy are the ones that buy ferrari's, lambos, have huge houses built, buy boats, spend lots on dinners and partys, which all comes back to the middle class. who invests billions in the stock market? The wealthy.

I know that redistribution of wealth is more of a socialistic view (I guess) but I think it is so worthless that people actually believe that the wealthy should be taxed more hoping that is some way, that money will get to them....for what? what did you do? work your @$$ off for little or nothing? what about people who go to school for 10 years and become a doctor and make millions and work 7 days a week saving peoples lives, should you get a piece of their pie?
I understand that there are people who need help and some have no other options when it comes to providing for their families or just for themselves...but trying to blame rich people for your problems and that somehow you deserve what they have is obsurd.
For all you that are democrats, explain to me your side of the story....

My opinion exactly!!!!

And the person that "pay" the smaller amount, truely pays less if anything because of all the breaks there are. I fall into that category. I paid almost nothing after my return due to me having a child. So all the welfare and low class people that think the rich guy should pay his "fair" share doesn't even pay anything themselves. To many people want something for nothing and these are the majority of the people that bring democrats into office.

 

[westvirginia24976]

I hate getting involved in political threads but, ......
I am a registered Republican with my heart and ideals firmly planted in the Libertarian party. The trouble with that is the Libertarian party probably will never elect a President in my lifetime. What benefits do the Libertarians provide politicians? The truly lazy and burdensome segment of our population would never vote their handouts away. Red and Blue both need to go away, but something other than doing the same failed policies of the past would result in a viable third party. It is too bad there is no White to our Red, White, and Blue. By the way, Cherokeekid88, there are some things that Democrats hold dear that are good ideas, but easily abused and manipulated. The same holds true for Republicans. Except for defense, courts, infrastructure(roads and such), police, fire, etc; There should be MINIMAL govt. I live in an area where there are almost no police, the churches take good care of the elderly and poor, and the deadbeats are cast out of meaningful society without their handout. Neighbors still rely on each other and not the government. The strangest thing is the tax rate is low. Funny how that happens when you don't have a huge staff of government officials doing nothing except trying to dream up another program to fund.

 

[JohnX]

I paid almost nothing after my return due to me having a child.

Truely one of my biggest complaints with our tax system, people get rewarded for having children which are a draw on the system. Children should be taxed extra to pay for all the extra medical, education, etc. they are provided with.

Go ahead and flame, I know its an unpopular opinion since most people have children.

 

[old_man]

Good Post. Let me get on my soap box for a minute. What is wrong with America is that we have substituted our faith and reliance in God and neighbors with a reliance on the government. When I grew up on the farm, everybody helped everybody out. The guy down the road had a heart attack, so all the neighbors got together and harvested his hay. We had a house burn down and lost everything. While we had insurance on the structure, not so much on the interior stuff. Our farming community, church, and friends held a house warming once we got rebuilt and completely furnished the home with new stuff, right down to the washcloths and towels. That was just the way it was done. Nobody thought it was a big deal, just the way it was supposed to be done. That worked, what we have now doesn't.

Stepping off the soap box.

I hate getting involved in political threads but, ......
I am a registered Republican with my heart and ideals firmly planted in the Libertarian party. The trouble with that is the Libertarian party probably will never elect a President in my lifetime. What benefits do the Libertarians provide politicians? The truly lazy and burdensome segment of our population would never vote their handouts away. Red and Blue both need to go away, but something other than doing the same failed policies of the past would result in a viable third party. It is too bad there is no White to our Red, White, and Blue. By the way, Cherokeekid88, there are some things that Democrats hold dear that are good ideas, but easily abused and manipulated. The same holds true for Republicans. Except for defense, courts, infrastructure(roads and such), police, fire, etc; There should be MINIMAL govt. I live in an area where there are almost no police, the churches take good care of the elderly and poor, and the deadbeats are cast out of meaningful society without their handout. Neighbors still rely on each other and not the government. The strangest thing is the tax rate is low. Funny how that happens when you don't have a huge staff of government officials doing nothing except trying to dream up another program to fund.

 

[Cherokeekid88]

Truely one of my biggest complaints with our tax system, people get rewarded for having children which are a draw on the system. Children should be taxed extra to pay for all the extra medical, education, etc. they are provided with.

Go ahead and flame, I know its an unpopular opinion since most people have children.

I am not going to flame you for your opinion, but I think you are right on some level....I don't think children should be taxed extra, but I do think something should be done with women who have lots of kids and are on welfare.

But my main thing is people looking for hand outs....But still noone has chimed in how how democrats think the economy works.

 

[Cherokeekid88]

Good Post. Let me get on my soap box for a minute. What is wrong with America is that we have substituted our faith and reliance in God and neighbors with a reliance on the government. When I grew up on the farm, everybody helped everybody out. The guy down the road had a heart attack, so all the neighbors got together and harvested his hay. We had a house burn down and lost everything. While we had insurance on the structure, not so much on the interior stuff. Our farming community, church, and friends held a house warming once we got rebuilt and completely furnished the home with new stuff, right down to the washcloths and towels. That was just the way it was done. Nobody thought it was a big deal, just the way it was supposed to be done. That worked, what we have now doesn't.

Stepping off the soap box.

I agree with you 100%. problem is, I don't think there is any chance for people to be like that again as a whole. There will always be people like that, but as a society, not a chance.