I'm trying to understand Republicans, but I just can't

[Acid_Lamp]

@msmith537

I was actually thinking of everyone else on the SDMB besides you and a few others. For a board porporting to “fight ignorance”, a lot of people seem to have this attitude that money is the root of all evil and therefore anything or anyone that makes a lot of money is inherently immoral.

That’s not really a fair assessment. I view money and our current system of trade as a necessary evil at the moment, but it is hardly the root of all suffering. You can blame good old human nature for that. We have not evolved out of greed and resource hoarding being a successful strategy, and so we must deal with it as best we can.

I’ll not speak for everyone on this board since our opinions and rationales differ so much; but for myself I do not begrudge the wealthy their money. However, I DO take issue with the concept that any of these people made their fortunes on their own with no input from the outside world as if they were on a little desert island constructing coconut radios. To become successful it requires lots of personal hard work and sacrifice, but it also requires an immense amount of luck, timing, and goodwill from the extended community: manufacturing, vendors, logistics, marketing, even less tangible things like friends, neighbors, and family, ALL of whom did that person favors, a good turn, took a chance on them and invested, etc. In short, They made their fortune on the backs of the community AND their own hard work, and thus paying a fair share is their ethical duty.

They should pay more because above a certain income level in the US their lifestyles cannot really get any better unless they become part of the very, very few ultra wealthy. Likewise, losing that income does not materially affect their lifestyle either. The average family exists on around 50k a year with two working parents. Consider that same income will provide nearly everything for three to four people in a modest manner in most parts of the country. A single person making 100K could provide for eight, 200k-16, 300k-24. Do the math and you can see how fast the luxury grows. I do not begrudge them their fortunes, but a higher tax rate on them will not affect them in any real sense of the word.

I don’t want to take their money and give it away, I don’t support welfare in general, but I DO want well funded schools, good roads, investment in the sciences, and programs to help make the truly poor a thing of the past. No one should starve in America. No one should go homeless for lack of money. No one should die because they cannot afford basic medical care. That doesn’t mean I want to give out monetary handouts, awesome free meals, or nice private housing.

That isn’t crazy liberal thinking, it’s nothing more than basic human decency.

[MattProle]

@Acid_Lamp

That’s not really a fair assessment. I view money and our current system of trade as a necessary evil at the moment, but it is hardly the root of all suffering. You can blame good old human nature for that. We have not evolved out of greed and resource hoarding being a successful strategy, and so we must deal with it as best we can.

I’ll not speak for everyone on this board since our opinions and rationales differ so much; but for myself I do not begrudge the wealthy their money. However, I DO take issue with the concept that any of these people made their fortunes on their own with no input from the outside world as if they were on a little desert island constructing coconut radios. To become successful it requires lots of personal hard work and sacrifice, but it also requires an immense amount of luck, timing, and goodwill from the extended community: manufacturing, vendors, logistics, marketing, even less tangible things like friends, neighbors, and family, ALL of whom did that person favors, a good turn, took a chance on them and invested, etc. In short, They made their fortune on the backs of the community AND their own hard work, and thus paying a fair share is their ethical duty.

They should pay more because above a certain income level in the US their lifestyles cannot really get any better unless they become part of the very, very few ultra wealthy. Likewise, losing that income does not materially affect their lifestyle either. The average family exists on around 50k a year with two working parents. Consider that same income will provide nearly everything for three to four people in a modest manner in most parts of the country. A single person making 100K could provide for eight, 200k-16, 300k-24. Do the math and you can see how fast the luxury grows. I do not begrudge them their fortunes, but a higher tax rate on them will not affect them in any real sense of the word.

I don’t want to take their money and give it away, I don’t support welfare in general, but I DO want well funded schools, good roads, investment in the sciences, and programs to help make the truly poor a thing of the past. No one should starve in America. No one should go homeless for lack of money. No one should die because they cannot afford basic medical care. That doesn’t mean I want to give out monetary handouts, awesome free meals, or nice private housing.

That isn’t crazy liberal thinking, it’s nothing more than basic human decency.

Well said!

[Buck_Godot]

@yorick73

I think you missed the point of Table 3. A lot of those entries in that single clump you refer to are further away from center than either Special Report or Washington Times. Both of these just appear to be a severe outlier to you because they are the only two on the right. Here…from the study:

Here is another quote form the study

To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.

Given that the study was done at a time when Republicans had control of both houses of congress, and the presidency, and further given that Republicans tend towards more ideological purity than Democrats, the results aren’t that surprising. The average media outlet is going to be left of the average member of a strongly Republican congress. If you ran the same study 2 years ago who knows how it would have come out.

[clairobscur]

@Recovering_Republican

But can you call yourself a Catholic and disagree with the pope.

Let’s be honest, Catholic Dogma says the Pope is Infallible, and he’s on “God’s Dave Five”. .

As it’s often mentioned, the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra (basically when specifically invoking infallibility when making a pronouncement). Something that he never does (or rather was never done by any pope during the last 150 years or so) .
Doesn’t mean that a catholic in good standing shouldn’t accept the statements of the pope in matter of faith, but infallibility is a different animal (can’t be changed by a latter pope, for instance, while the next pope could decide that contraception is acceptable, priests can be married, etc…)

[yorick73]

@Buck_Godot

Given that the study was done at a time when Republicans had control of both houses of congress, and the presidency, and further given that Republicans tend towards more ideological purity than Democrats, the results aren’t that surprising. The average media outlet is going to be left of the average member of a strongly Republican congress. If you ran the same study 2 years ago who knows how it would have come out.

I am not arguing that the study is accurate or that the methodology is sound. I always take these kinds of studies with a large grain of salt due to the inherent subjectivity involved in this type of undertaking.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@msmith537

Politicians should feel intimidated by businessmen. It is the successful ventures of businessmen and entrepreneurs that allows Americans to enjoy a high standard of living. Not the generosity of government.

From 1921 to 2001 Democrat presidents were in the White House for forty years; Republican presidents were there for the other forty years. During this time the per capita gross domestic product grew more than twice as much under Democrat presidents. This is because trickle up economic policies work.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

When the government imposes heavy taxes on the rich and spreads the wealth around, the wealth grows more than when the rich spend their money on themselves.

[John_Mace]

@New_Deal_Democrat

From 1921 to 2001 Democrat presidents were in the White House for forty years; Republican presidents were there for the other forty years. During this time the per capita gross domestic product grew more than twice as much under Democrat presidents. This is because trickle up economic policies work.
Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

When the government imposes heavy taxes on the rich and spreads the wealth around, the wealth grows more than when the rich spend their money on themselves.

I wasn’t aware that presidents can set tax rates by executive order. Ignorance fought!

[elucidator]

His explanation for this phenomenon may well be faulty. What’s yours?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

His explanation for this phenomenon may well be faulty. What’s yours?

I don’t claim to be an expert on presidential party affiliation and its effect on the economy.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@msmith537

Maybe we should return to a society run by a hereditary aristocracy? You would probably like that. Since your words echo the sentiments of every tyrant, dictator and hereditary monarch throughout history.

I can’t possibly fathom what in your mind separates multi-generational prep school Ivy League types from the CEOs, investment bankers and business executives you purport to dislike. I too am pessimistic about human nature. I believe the type of leaders you describe will profess to reperesent a “higher standard” but in reality would simply ennact a form of self-serving elitism that punishes success and discourages innovation.

Someone whose family has been rich for generations, and who attended Ivy League schools with buildings named after ancestors is likely to have a sense of noblesse oblige. I would rather be governed by someone like that than the poorly educated son of a truck driver who has read too much Ayn Rand.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@John_Mace

I wasn’t aware that presidents can set tax rates by executive order. Ignorance fought!

The president sets the tone for what the government does. Democrat presidents usually promote tax increases on the rich. Republican presidents usually call for tax cuts that favor the rich. That is why from 1921 to 2001 the per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars grew twice as much under Democrat presidents as under Republican presidents.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Someone whose family has been rich for generations, and who attended Ivy League schools with buildings named after ancestors is likely to have a sense of noblesse oblige. I would rather be governed by someone like that than the poorly educated son of a truck driver who has read too much Ayn Rand.

As long as we are going to be governed by rich men, I would rather be governed by rich men who have reason to think of their wealth as a gift, rather than an entitlement.

[John_Mace]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The president sets the tone for what the government does. Democrat presidents usually promote tax increases on the rich. Republican presidents usually call for tax cuts that favor the rich. That is why from 1921 to 2001 the per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars grew twice as much under Democrat presidents as under Republican presidents.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

Interesting hypothesis, but still untested in terms of the data presented.

And anyone who thinks you can analyze the effect of one variable on a multivarible problem without controlling for all the other variables doesn’t understand the nature of mulitvarable problems.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@John_Mace

Interesting hypothesis, but still untested in terms of the data presented.

And anyone who thinks you can analyze the effect of one variable on a multivarible problem without controlling for all the other variables doesn’t understand the nature of mulitvarable problems.

Warren G. Harding entered office in 1921, Calvin Coolidge left office in 1929. Even if we dismiss 1929, when the stock market crash happened, the per capita gross domestic product grew from $5,758 to $7,439 in 1928 in 1996 dollars. This represents a growth of $1,681.

When Franklin Roosevelt entered office in 1933 the per capita GDP was $4,804 in terms of 1996 dollars. At the end of Roosevelt’s first term it had grown to $$,721, for an increase of $1,917.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

The 1920s are considered to be a period of robust economic growth, but nearly all of it went to the richest 20 percent of the country. There was more economic growth during Roosevelt’s first term than during the terms of Harding and Coolidge, even when we do not include 1929.

If you do the kind of calculations I have done here, you will find that during the forty years from 1921 to 2001 that a Republican was president, the per capita GDP grew by $8,356 in terms of 1996 dollars. During the forty years that a Democrat president was in the White House, the growth was $18,186. Republicans like to think that they have the secret to economic growth. The record clearly shows otherwise.

[John_Mace]

Repeating an unproven assertion multiple times does change it into a proven assertion. Your correlation is not proven to be causation. The analysis is so simplistic as to be laughable, really.

[Ludovic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Republicans like to think that they have the secret to economic growth. The record clearly shows otherwise.

@John_Mace

Repeating an unproven assertion multiple times does change it into a proven assertion. Your correlation is not proven to be causation. The analysis is so simplistic as to be laughable, really.

The emphasis for me is the above quote. The fact would not be so interesting were it not for the constant barrage of voodoo economics lies that flatly contradict reality.

Better growth under Democrats might not be the entire truth, but it’s a lot damn closer.

[emacknight]

@msmith537

I was actually thinking of everyone else on the SDMB besides you and a few others. For a board porporting to “fight ignorance”, a lot of people seem to have this attitude that money is the root of all evil and therefore anything or anyone that makes a lot of money is inherently immoral.

That’s because to make money you have to commit a crime

Behind every fortune is a crime, claimed Balzac. Are there exceptions?

Makes it easier to take someone’s property when you can define it has not really theirs,

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@John_Mace

Interesting hypothesis, but still untested in terms of the data presented.

And anyone who thinks you can analyze the effect of one variable on a multivarible problem without controlling for all the other variables doesn’t understand the nature of mulitvarable problems.

perhaps you are right but the relationship is buttressed by consistency across multiple outcomes. You choose an economic indicator. You’ll find that the same relationship exists for it.

Now you are correct that it has not been empirically proven that democrats in the white house are causal in this matter. I would invite you to show me any economic causal factor that has been empirically proven.

Otherwise you appear to be engaging in tedious hand waving. Perhaps your hypothesis has merit. Perhaps there is no relationship between our government and our economic outcomes. Do you have any empirical support for that position?

[BrainGlutton]

@emacknight

Makes it easier to take someone’s property when you can define it has not really theirs,

What’s really theirs? No property is property save by definition as such, by human laws or social consensus, neither of which is immutable in any sense.

[emacknight]

@BrainGlutton

What’s really theirs? No property is property save by definition as such, by human laws or social consensus, neither of which is immutable in any sense.

Exactly. Why bother having any sort of property rights? All land should belong to the people, and then assigned to each person based on what they need, by a benevolent government that loves and cares for us, and knows exactly what each of us needs.