If Republicans only care about the rich...

MaxTheVool: First, let’s concede that in both the Republican Party and in the Democrat party there are people who vote based not on personal knowledge or philosophy, but simply because they have chosen the group they want to belong to and they parrot whatever the group tells them. I know liberals who couldn’t tell you a damned thing other than what they’ve been told by various liberal groups or activists who feed them talking points. And there are Conservatives who do the same thing. They know which side they prefer, and once they’ve chosen sides they are good foot soldiers for the cause. If Rush or Beck tells them something, they simply repeat it to others as if it’s the revealed truth of God - but they have no idea why.

To such people, uttering political opinion is akin to joining in a tribal dance - it’s a way to affirm their membership in the clan. I honestly believe this describes a fairly large percentage of people on both extremes of political debate. And to be honest, there’s really nothing wrong with that: If you don’t have time or the brainpower or the inclination to heavily research every single position, there’s nothing wrong with just aligning yourself with the group of people you feel most comfortable with and repeating what you’re told. Unfortunately, these are also the kinds of people who are most easily manipulated by powerful forces on each side, whether it be the Koch Brothers or George Soros, Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

The next group of people on each side are the ones who are in it for themselves. Union workers who vote Democrat because Democrats promise to give union workers more power. Businessmen who vote Republican because Republicans will cut taxes for businessmen. Special interests on both sides. These are the groups who assert the most power over the entire collective, because they have the most to gain or lose and therefore put in the most effort and money. Unions are the biggest lobbyists and donators in Washington. Of the top 20 biggest donors to politicians in Washington, 16 of them give to Democrats, and most of those are unions.

The last group on each side are the people who are basically policy wonks who combine their own a priori assumptions and worldviews to politics, employ rational analysis, and decide where they stand. They may vote liberal or conservative regardless of how it personally affects them, because they’re trying to operate from a position of logic and empirical evidence, and are trying to do what’s right for their country. I honestly believe that describes most of the people in Great Debates - on the right and on the left. That includes wealthy people like Matt Damon who advocates for higher taxes on the rich, despite the fact that he’d be one of the ones paying the higher taxes. It includes people like me, who advocated for less government at a time when I qualified for half the government assistance programs available - and didn’t take them.

I honestly don’t see either side as being better or worse in this regard. I know a lot of libertarians and conservatives who personally have little to gain by advocating for their positions, but do so because they honestly think it’s the best way for society to organize itself to maximize long term wealth, security, and happiness. I read a lot of libertarian and conservative literature, and the arguments therein are generally sincere and focused on what’s best for the country as a whole, in the author’s opinion. I also read left-wing magazines, and I generally find the same attitude in, say The Nation.

Unfortunately, there are also agitators on both sides - rhetorical bomb throwers and angry partisans who aren’t happy just advocating for their own beliefs, but must tear down the other side through personal attacks, moral slams, or even physical violence. They’re the ones who are convinced that to be a Republican/Democrat you must be Evil/Stupid/Brainwashed, and therefore you must be mocked, threatened, and abused.

Everyone has to decide what part they want to play.

Oh noes!! The dreaded “Liberals are intolerant of intolerance!” jape! Declare victory and go home!

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/08/republican_giveaway.html It was defeated but heavily backed by conservatives and tea baggers.

I don’t disagree with a single word in your reasonable and well-thought-out post. Where we differ (I think) is that you seem to be implicitly stating that because there are people in both camps from all the different groups that you describe (which I agree with), that there are somehow equal numbers of people from all those groups in each party; and that the influence they wield, and the influence wielded over them by outside forces, are therefore also equal. I strongly disagree. Look at Grover Norquist, or Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News (in general). All have enormous influence over the right. None have remote equivalents on the left.

I’m not saying that Republicans or conservatives are dumber, or more easily manipulated. I’m saying that The Right (with capital letters to be ominous) is MUCH better at doing the manipulation, much more organized about it, much more coordinated about it.

This sentence is remarkably revealing.

Why?

The majority of tax cuts go to people who pay the most taxes. Shocking. :rolleyes:

Do explain. Do you disagree with it?

Are you really that simple? Taxes have been slashed for the wealthy since Reagan. I am talking about tax rates that have been slashed. If you can not follow that,roll roll roll your eyes.
The concentration of wealth in America is turning our country is a new and ugly direction. The concentration is worse than the Gilded Age which preceded the great depression. This is less and less a country where you can thrive through hard work. The rich live in different gated communities, eat in different places, send their children to great schools separated from ours. They shut the door on the problems of little people.?
I bet you can follow this. A person making 50 K a year pays 30 percent tax. !5 K a year. A guy making a million pays 10 percent. He pays 100K a year. I know which number is bigger but the millionaire is still sitting on 900 K. The other Guy is down to 35. Whose live is being greatly impacted by taxes? But you would cry for the poor millionaire getting robbed of such a huge amount of money. See how much more is being confiscated from the rich guy. hell he pays more than 7 times more tax. What an injustice. That injustice lives in your imagination.

I can think of several reasons why Republican voters vote Republican, in regards to the OP.

  1. Republican voters are wrong about the effects of Republican economic policy. This is apparently calling them stupid, and the gravest offense.

  2. Democratic voters are wrong about the effects of Republican economic policy. This seems to be the position of the OP, and not offensive at all.

  3. Republican voters vote for Republicans for non-economic reasons, social issues, not liking the Democratic contender, etc.

  4. non-rich Republican voters know that Republican policies help the rich, but vote Republican because of principles (against getting money from the Gov’t unfairly.)

  5. non-rich Republican voters know that Republican policies help the rich, but vote Republican because they believe they will be rich someday

  6. Republican policies help the rich, and the rich have money to help Republicans get elected.

Real numbers really matter. 62% of the cuts went to the top 1%. Did you try to play with this in your mind? Or did your brain just short-circuit into some “class-warfare” meme?

There are different ways of looking at income inequality. I’ll offer three important points, hoping to help you to open your mind:

  1. Unless by “fairness” you mean that money spent by the super-rich on million-dollar holidays would be better spent on malnourished children, then please don’t discuss tax “fairness.” Life isn’t fair.

  2. You may have noticed that U.S.A. and the world are facing grave problems now. If you’re a pragmatist you may have noticed that the policy of forcing the rich to get richer and richer isn’t yielding good results.

  3. Thailand is/was noted for income inequality, and it was disturbing to watch Mercedes Benz drive past abject slums. Since I’ve spent a lot of time in both U.S.A. and Thailand, I find myself making comparisons; it is less and less often these days that the comparison favors the U.S. Recently I noticed that the U.S. has now passed Thailand in Gini coefficient. (Gini is a robust measure of income inequality.) That’s right; U.S. now has worse inequality than a country that was once the epitome of inequality. Forget “fairness” or politics – inequality is simply disadvantageous for social and economic stability.

Hope this helps. If not, please start a BBQ Pit thread. (The above is as civil as I can be with certain ilks of “intellect.”)

http://www.alternet.org/story/151999/meet_the_global_financial_elites_controlling_%2446_trillion_in_wealth/
Deloitte Accounting has just finished an accounting of the rich in America. Millionaire households have 38.6 trillion in wealth with another 6.3 trillion in offshore banking. With our so just tax system, they will increase their wealth to 87.1 by 2020.
The system has become a piggy bank for the wealthy. I am sure you all will be assured of 20 percent more wealth by 2020. I am sure no matter what statistics are shown to you, some will refuse to believe we are a plutocracy, until it is too late. It may be too late now.
Magellan probably thinks he will be one of them so he will fight for their right to steal.

Absolutely. I think there is individual variability on a number of dispositions. Some people are more fearful than others, for instance. Some people have greater empathy than others. Some people are more motivated to seek logical or empirical evidence, others prefer to make decisions on faith and belief alone. Certainly we can all agree on this.

Thus, rather than choosing a team because we prefer one uniform over another, we affiliate with political parties that are more consistent with our preferences. These preferences are driven by individual differences in traits and dispositions.

However, if you believe that you have just selected to be on one team instead of another, it would explain why you cheerlead so forcefully for one side in the face of reality and all empirical evidence to the contrary.

I do admire the Soviet prison system under Joseph Stalin. Stalin proved that a prison system can be run at a profit to the state. I do not believe most criminals can be rehabilitated. The only to get any value out of them is through prison labor, enforced by the whip.

I suspect they might bear a grudge after they are released at the end of their sentences. Or do you envision life sentences for all crimes?

You’re saying the same thing I did. I didn’t say people were choosing teams superficially - I said they choose to ally themselves with the groups they feel comfortable with. That includes things like looking at the political affiliation of the people you admire more, the experiences of your childhood and early adulthood that resonates with one group more than the other, etc.

That’s also what I said, unless you’re aiming the ‘you’ in that paragraph at me in particular. If so, I’d have to disagree with you. But that’s no surprise.

Wow. That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone express admiration for the Soviet Gulag system.

News flash: It’s not hard to ‘extract value’ from people if you’re willing to starve them and work them literally to death.

Similarly, Stalin managed to raise productivity in the Soviet Union through the ‘successful’ tactic of taking aside the people who refuse to work hard and shooting them in the head.

I would keep them in until they either die or are too old to be a danger to society.

Joseph Stalin made mistakes, but it is not clear to me that anyone else who might have been the ruler of Russia at the time could have prepered Russia for the German invasion, and lead Russia against the German invasion.

Now people were put in Stalin’s prison system for political crimes. I do not advocate that. I do see his prison system as a way of getting value out of those who have debts to pay society.

You’re going to need a bigger prison. A lot bigger. Oh, and higher taxes.