Why Do You Vote Democrat?

[Lurch]

I hate getting involved in political threads

Me too.

This is from Wikipedia and seems to sum up Democratic fiscal policy fairly succinctly:

"Democrats generally support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality.[59] Currently they have proposed allowing those tax cuts the Bush administration gave to the wealthiest Americans to expire as written in the original legislation while wishing to keep in place those given to the middle class.[59][60] Democrats generally support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military.[61][62] They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various welfare programs,[63] believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positive freedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity."

So basically they believe in a 'social safety net' paid through higher taxes will result in a more equal and productive workforce. Nice idea, but obviously hasn't worked too well in practice.

Also, Democrat and Republican are proper nouns and it is confusing when you write 'democratic' because that is something completely different than the Democratic political party.

 

[Cherokeekid88]

Me too.

This is from Wikipedia and seems to sum up Democratic fiscal policy fairly succinctly:

"Democrats generally support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality.[59] Currently they have proposed allowing those tax cuts the Bush administration gave to the wealthiest Americans to expire as written in the original legislation while wishing to keep in place those given to the middle class.[59][60] Democrats generally support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military.[61][62] They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various welfare programs,[63] believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positive freedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity."

So basically they believe in a 'social safety net' paid through higher taxes will result in a more equal and productive workforce. Nice idea, but obviously hasn't worked too well in practice.

Also, Democrat and Republican are proper nouns and it is confusing when you write 'democratic' because that is something completely different than the Democratic political party.

ok, that makes sense. Yeah I don't mean to type "democratic", just a habit. But how do democrats believe that taxing rich people won't effect the middle class by losing jobs?? thats my biggest argument.

 

[SC Rednek]

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Ben Franklin

Unfortunately, that applies to both Republicans and Democrats today, both sides are trying to buy votes with our own money, they're just trying to buy them from different groups of people. None of them are purely interested in the well being of our country, and if they were there's no way they would get elected if the other side is still promising free money.

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

Actually is still does, what do you think the banks do with all that money while they're holding it? (I'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist as a big pile of gold sitting in a vault somewhere).

 

[Darky]

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

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

I'm not endorsing it, just pointing a flaw in the OP's logic. I think a mix would work best. Obviously the wealthy business owners won't be spending money on labor if it would cut into their profits to much, but we can't rely on their goodness and generosity either.

 

[rockclimber]

I'm not endorsing it, just pointing a flaw in the OP's logic. I think a mix would work best. Obviously the wealthy business owners won't be spending money on labor if it would cut into their profits to much, but we can't rely on their goodness and generosity either.

I was laughing at you calling him out for ranting against dems, while simultaneously agreeing with them on one of their biggest issues...

 

[Tom R.]

Me too.

This is from Wikipedia and seems to sum up Democratic fiscal policy fairly succinctly:

"Democrats generally support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality.[59] Currently they have proposed allowing those tax cuts the Bush administration gave to the wealthiest Americans to expire as written in the original legislation while wishing to keep in place those given to the middle class.[59][60] Democrats generally support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military.[61][62] They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various welfare programs,[63] believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positive freedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity."

So basically they believe in a 'social safety net' paid through higher taxes will result in a more equal and productive workforce. Nice idea, but obviously hasn't worked too well in practice.

Also, Democrat and Republican are proper nouns and it is confusing when you write 'democratic' because that is something completely different than the Democratic political party.

Most democrat and republican politicians today don't hold to the same ideals as they did years ago; both have morphed into something different.

There's plenty of evidence over the last five decades that show the detrimental effects of the kind of policy outlined in the wiki article. Look at many of the major cities that have been consistently run by Democrats who support large social welfare programs (e.g., Detroit). Hell, look no further than the last 3.5 years to see what kind of hope and change came about across the country.

The defense of our country is one of the prime functions of federal government per the Constitution; welfare and other social entitlement programs are not. I fully understand and support helping out people who truly need it, which should happen primarily at the local level, but the huge federal social/welfare programs tend to keep people dependent on the handouts rather than help them become self-sufficient. The huge gains made in welfare reform during Clinton's tenure were erased by our current prez. Shameful.

Progressive tax system....a socialist idea that is grossly unfair. I'm not rich, but most definitely pay my fair share. I'm especially tired of hearing my "progressive" friends demand that the rich pay even more when they themselves are part of the 50% of households who pay NO income taxes.

There is no such thing as economic equality. It's an untainable socialistic ideology that has negative consequences if attempted. All of us have equal opportunity to advance, as it should be, but it ends there. The current administration is hitting this on a couple of fronts, one of which is the class warfare BS that Obama is promoting. Economic classes are not static in the U.S. People move in and out of "classes" all the time. One of the great things about our free market is you can start at the bottom and make something of yourself. And for your success, many from the left think you should be punished and vilified.

 

[Cherokeekid88]

Most democrat and republican politicians today don't hold to the same ideals as they did years ago; both have morphed into something different.

There's plenty of evidence over the last five decades that show the detrimental effects of the kind of policy outlined in the wiki article. Look at many of the major cities that have been consistently run by Democrats who support large social welfare programs (e.g., Detroit). Hell, look no further than the last 3.5 years to see what kind of hope and change came about across the country.

The defense of our country is one of the prime functions of federal government per the Constitution; welfare and other social entitlement programs are not. I fully understand and support helping out people who truly need it, which should happen primarily at the local level, but the huge federal social/welfare programs tend to keep people dependent on the handouts rather than help them become self-sufficient. The huge gains made in welfare reform during Clinton's tenure were erased by our current prez. Shameful.

Progressive tax system....a socialist idea that is grossly unfair. I'm not rich, but most definitely pay my fair share. I'm especially tired of hearing my "progressive" friends demand that the rich pay even more when they themselves are part of the 50% of households who pay NO income taxes.

There is no such thing as economic equality. It's an untainable socialistic ideology that has negative consequences if attempted. All of us have equal opportunity to advance, as it should be, but it ends there. The current administration is hitting this on a couple of fronts, one of which is the class warfare BS that Obama is promoting. Economic classes are not static in the U.S. People move in and out of "classes" all the time. One of the great things about our free market is you can start at the bottom and make something of yourself. And for your success, many from the left think you should be punished and vilified.

Very well said. I am all for helping people but I do not agree with penalizing someone who has worked hard to make a good life for themselves in order to provide a better life (or so they think) for someone who has no ambitions and no motivation to work. Also, I understand that there are people like the Kardashians who have contributed nothing to society but a mind numbing show of manusha. I feel like, if you are rich and are democrat and believe that rich people should pay more in taxes, well then pull out your check book and write a big fat check to the Gov, I am sure they will take it. But don't tell me how to spend my money. prime example, a guy I know. Has never worked a full time job in his life. has 4 kids by 3 different mothers. he has worked the last 10 years delivering pizzas part time and his kids are getting a whopping $11 a week from his wages. Gets government assistant on everything, yet he has a HUGE LED tv, playstation 3, xbox 360, tons of sports memorabilia, and all the weed he wants...he reccently quit his job working part time to file for disability...nothing is wrong with him (physically) but somehow got the doctor to agree that he has chronic back pain and can't work....guess what? This (*&#$(&(*&@*&# got disability! Guess who pays for that? rediculous.

 

[Boatwrench]

Well thought out Post Tom R.

I have yet to see a proposal from the conservative side of the house that does not throw the baby out with the bath water. It appears to be either an "all or nothing" situation.

Oh another democrat idea I forgot to mention in my 1st post. The GI Bill. FDR's GI Bill created the middle class. It took farm boys and broke depression era teenagers and provided them opportunities to achieve an education and purchase a home. The GI Bill was probably more important to this country's economy than anything I mentioned in my 1st post.

 

[kastein]

FDR also created massive entitlements which our enlightened D/R overlords in the senate and house are still fighting over how best to avoid fixing.

Why does the government need its hands in my pockets (to put things in other people's pockets) and its eyes in my house/bedroom again? It should be upholding the constitution, defending the country, enforcing laws not writing more, and then staying the hell out of my personal life and finances.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian. I'll be voting for people who actually stand for the constitution and our rights from now until the day they get elected, or I die, whichever comes first. You guys can choose your lesser evils but I will be no part of that.

 

[cracker]

FDR also created massive entitlements which our enlightened D/R overlords in the senate and house are still fighting over how best to avoid fixing.

Why does the government need its hands in my pockets (to put things in other people's pockets) and its eyes in my house/bedroom again? It should be upholding the constitution, defending the country, enforcing laws not writing more, and then staying the hell out of my personal life and finances.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian. I'll be voting for people who actually stand for the constitution and our rights from now until the day they get elected, or I die, whichever comes first. You guys can choose your lesser evils but I will be no part of that.

:clap:

 

[Tom R.]

Well thought out Post Tom R.

Ha, thanks. Maybe I should write more often late at night when I'm beat tired after a full work day and then school assignments.

I have yet to see a proposal from the conservative side of the house that does not throw the baby out with the bath water. It appears to be either an "all or nothing" situation.

Both sides are guilty of "my way or the highway" to varying degrees, but everything the repubs proposed the first two years of Obama's administration were routinely rejected or prevented from a vote in either house. Harry Reid is still guilty of pocketing bills, not letting them come to a vote in the senate. Dems and their surrogates, the mainstream media, often tell the public that repubs never offer any alternatives. The fact is, they do offer alternatives but they're routinely rejected or held up by Reid and never reported by the press. If I followed just the newspapers and news on mainstream TV, I would be misled/fed biased bullcrap. It's my hope that more people will get involved in what our elected "leaders" are doing to ensure they're working on our behalf and not their own.

Oh another democrat idea I forgot to mention in my 1st post. The GI Bill. FDR's GI Bill created the middle class. It took farm boys and broke depression era teenagers and provided them opportunities to achieve an education and purchase a home. The GI Bill was probably more important to this country's economy than anything I mentioned in my 1st post.

Very important bill that helped out millions of vets. FDR gets credit for signing it, Congress for hashing out the details, but it was drafted by Harry W. Colmery, a republican and former national commander of the American Legion. More info available on VA's website. BTW, I'm using my GI Bill now.

 

[westvirginia24976]

BTW, I'm using my GI Bill now.

atriot: Thanks Tom, you earned it!

 

[Bent]

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.

:clap: DING, DING, DING...We have a winner. Once 25%-30% of the popular vote goes third party things will change. Even if most of the cantidates do not get elected; the message will be heard. A couple of years ago I quite wasting my vote by what was voting against a particular cantidate instead of for who I believed to be best suited to uphold the Constitution.

:us:

In November 2012 I will be voting Obama; his election will provide the most direct route to the restoration of the long neglected (by both red and blue) Constitution and Constitutional law.

wl:

 

[XJEEPER]

In November 2012 I will be voting Obama; his election will provide the most direct route to the restoration of the long neglected (by both red and blue) Constitution and Constitutional law.

wl:

Bwaaaahhhhhhahhaaaaaa!

 

[tbburg]

Always liked the "Tax the rich!" movement. I got my own little lesson on that score years ago.
I was working at a small company in Ohio, max 25 employees, highest paid person made under 50K a year. Nobody rich there. One of my duties was "payroll clerk"(hated that job)
During the Clinton administration, the feds raised taxes "on the rich"(That's what congress and the media said anyway). Everyone in the office saw take-home pay drop due to withholding increases at the federal level.
Bush came into office and there was a tax decrease "for the rich".(..,at least according to the media) Everyone in the office saw a real take home pay increase.

Had one of the more entertaining conversations with a progressive/liberal co-worker wondering why her pay had changed(yep, it was a big enough change that everyone in the office noticed,..) I told her that she must be rich. She argued that she definitely wasn't rich. My response: "Well, you're getting a tax cut that was for the rich,.." (Look on face = priceless)
She literally couldn't understand that tax policy affects all people who pay taxes, and when politicians talk about "the rich", they mean "anyone who makes money and pays taxes on it".


(For the record, never paid attention, but I always thought of myself as a middle of the road conservative. A couple years ago I took one of those on-line tests: answer came back slightly liberal leaning hard line libertarian(What!:wierd. I've taken several more since, and all come back with the same answer.)

 

[rockclimber]

Bush came into office and there was a tax decrease "for the rich".(..,at least according to the media) Everyone in the office saw a real take home pay increase.

that's all well and good, but if you don't cut spending to go along with those tax cuts, you are going to end up more ****ed than if you hadn't cut them.

 

[kastein]

(For the record, never paid attention, but I always thought of myself as a middle of the road conservative. A couple years ago I took one of those on-line tests: answer came back slightly liberal leaning hard line libertarian(What!:wierd. I've taken several more since, and all come back with the same answer.)

welcome to the club!

We have people on both sides angry at us for "wasting votes"

 

[Bent]

angry at us for "wasting votes"

I have wasted my fair share and then some. I'm not angry with any of you; I'm not really angry with me. I know that I now fit in a new catagory of "vote waster", though. I would love to see what one of those tests thinks I think how I think. I do know that as a recovering Republican; going to meetings and working the steps with a sponsor has helped.
Hi, my name is Tim.....

 

[tbburg]

that's all well and good, but if you don't cut spending to go along with those tax cuts, you are going to end up more ****ed than if you hadn't cut them.

I was making a comment about class warfare, not government spending.

What is the solution though,.. when they refuse to cut spending? Just continue to raise taxes? "Throw the bums out" doesn't seem to work,..

 

[tbburg]

In reference to post #35: I wasn't Picking on Clinton, and giving Bush a free pass. I was relating my personal experience as it happened at the time.

I didn't vote for Clinton, and voted for Bush Jr.

While I don't like former Pres. Clinton and what I believe he represents, I'll give credit where credit is due: The man was and is a perfect politician, charismatic and intelligent. Equal to, and maybe better then Regan. Give the man a topic, any topic, a position, and 10 minutes,.. he could deliver a speech that would make you think he BELIEVED. Give him another 10 minute sand he could deliver the same thing, from the other side of the argument(Regan couldn't do that.). Like him or not, the man was good at it.

People can argue about former Pres. Bush all they like. Surprised the hell out of me when he won. Whatever else he had going for him(a lot) the man couldn't give a speech to save his life.(the press had a field day with that,..)
In my book the worst thing he did was make little to no effort to rein in spending.