Sentiments like these are what distinguishes McMuffin and Johnson voters from the rest of America, tbh.
Social Security is a great deal if you’ll never save your own money. If you do save your money, then you’d do even better if you could also save the portion you put into SS and Medicare.
Yes it’d be great if everyone had a stable, well-paying job and never faced any financial emergency.
There is a social hierarchy in the US. Generally speaking
whites > non-whites
men > women
heterosexuals > LGBTQ
christian > non-christian
So the bulk of the contemporary republican party is people who are at the peak of the social totem pole, and who like being on top. White, heterosexual christian men.
People who do not fit into this category tend to lean democrat. Non-whites, LGBT, non-christians, even women.
Women only slightly prefer the democratic party, but Obama got 55% of the female vote in 2012.
Basically the more you fit the mold of someone on the top of the social totem pole, the more you lean GOP. The more you do not, the more you lean democrat.
There are other factors in politics obviously, but this rule of thumb is a fairly safe bet.
Social security has a progressive payment system. Medicare offers health care cheaper than private insurance and most people take 2-3x more out of medicare than they pay into it.
That would be swell. I was just trying to provide some perspective from one white guy that opposes HRC. SS is a net negative in my life.
I’d just also add:
two parents > one parent
Also, FYI, whites are not a monolith. Whites lean republican, but it depends on geography.
The northeast is very white, and it is the most liberal part of the country. Vermont is almost pure white, and it is the most liberal state in the union.
A lot of ‘why do white people lean republican’ is because of southern whites. Whites in the 13 southern states tend to be very socially conservative, and right now the republican party is the party of those beliefs.
Whites in the northeast lean dem. Whites in the midwest only mildly lean GOP. On the west coast I think whites break even between the two parties. However whites in the south lean GOP about 2-1 (the plains states has a white preference for the GOP, but I think it is a little less than 2-1. I don’t know the area too well though). Whites in the deep south (mississippi, alabama, louisiana) lean GOP about 9-1.
Basically whites in Mississippi or Utah are not the same as whites in California or Vermont.
THat’s unemployment you’re thinking of. Social Security won’t be there for you until you’re 65, no matter how bad off you are.
If whites were a monolith we’d be a one party state, whichever party the whites supported. The fact that whites are the ultimate swing group are the reason we have competitive elections. Should that ever end and whites start voting like minorities, then elections will cease to be competitive.
I kind of like that, when people rename themselves like “Bobby” Jindal it comes off as forced and fake.
That said I don’t think all names are equally pleasing to hear. I wonder if there has been a cataloging of this kind of effect, the sound of a name to the ear?
It could be a mixture of effects, the associations with the origins of the name, the people that tend to carry the name, the sound of the name.
Using a popular name as an example, I think the name Muhammad is an astonishingly ugly sounding name. But here I am not sure if it’s because of my VERY real negative impressions of Islam and the resultant negative behavior of too many people carrying that name or just the sound of it. I am not hostile to the sound of most middle eastern names, in fact I think many of them sound better than western alternatives, which makes it such a pity so many males are given the name Muhammad.
What about Aladdin? I know, Disney, but that is a super cool sounding name. It flows well. Amin / Nadir more decent sounding middle eastern names.
Same goes with many indian names. There is one of those conservative scholars for the American Enterprise Institute that goes by the name of Sadanand Dhume which to me sounds like one of the great name combos of the ages. Again, it flows well. Now maybe my perceptions would be much different if I grew up in India and had many other cultural associations with the connotations of names aside from pure sound.
/tangent
I never liked the sound of the work Ubuntu (sorry linux fans). It may mean something delightful, but the sound of it is… not pleasant to listen to. I wonder if this means I am hostile to african origin words or if it’s more of the sound of the word?
I think this is mostly true. There is something to the sound of a name, but the associations are real.
Social Security is an insurance as well as a retirement support program. No one directly benefits from SSDI until they need to. If you are horribly injured in an accident tomorrow, and are unable to work, the calculus of how much you benefit will rapidly change.
And the social impact of the retirement safety net is really hard to estimate. For one, it almost certainly leads to a more dynamic economy because people can risk their savings to open small businesses without fear of living on the streets if they fail. There are also lots of benefits to reducing elder poverty by 2/3rds that indirectly benefit you, in the same way that any dramatic reduction of poverty has lots of beneficial social effects the redound to everyone.
It might still be a net negative, but it’s not the sort of thing you can conclude by just looking at your 401k. It’s complicated.
Maybe not. One reason 401Ks are not doing well for lots of people is that in times of emergency people drain them, and are thus left with less money to retire on. SS is safe no matter what.
Social Security is progressive, so those of us who make lots of money don’t get relatively as much as those who are on the bottom. I assume you are including employer contributions to be invested yourself - lots of people wouldn’t have the clout to get that.
Plus, SS being minimal risk also has minimal yield. I didn’t sell anything in 2009 and have done rather well, but lots of people were not as clever.
That depends on the priority SS is given in the budgeting process. Right now, we get 75% when we retire if you’re under 50 now. That could go down further depending on what is done with Medicare(which is in even bigger trouble), Obamacare, the military, etc.
“Aladdin” is an Anglicization of “Ala-ud-din.” Similarly, “Abdul” is a contraction of “Abd-al-allah” or Abdullah.
if that is pronounced ALLAH-ooh-DEEN then that does not sound as good. If it was like Aludin that would sound better to me.
And I never liked the name/sound of either Abdullah or Abdul.
Does anyone know where I can find a state by state breakdown of democrat vs republican registration by white voters?
It was said earlier but I suspect it’s true, this may be about the legacy of the confederate south persisting into modern times. Plenty of white people in California and Washington and other states are either liberal, or live in much more mixed population states when it comes to political affiliation, but the south is a bedrock of conservatism, as is some corners of Utah where the religious mormons cluster.
If we removed the white sample from the former confederate states… what kind of numbers do we see?
[quote=“Salvor, post:198, topic:765211”]
if that is pronounced ALLAH-ooh-DEEN then that does not sound as good. If it was like Aludin that would sound better to me.
[quote]