# Why middle class support for Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531 "2008-10-18T16:16:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/61 "2008-10-20T15:44:49Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > At least part of the answer is that people like others to speak to an idealisation or projection of their aspirations of themselves, rather than their current reality. > > Joe the plumber is a perfect example. He had vague ideological commitments to flat tax. But he wasn’t interested in using impartial reason to equally critique John McCain’s progressive taxation policy. He was instead, I think, clearly emotionally unsatisfied with Obama’s narrative about those earning over $250,000, which didn’t speak to this nebulous future notion of Joe as the deserving rich business owner. The fact that Joe was not rich, and likely will never be rich, and that he would be objectively better off under Obama’s cuts was completely beside the point. He wants to see himself as rich, so that narrative is good. Just look at his very first words to Obama - which wasn’t about tax brackets, it was “do you believe in the American dream.” It’s very telling. I think that is the biggest reason. The Republican’s spend a lot of time and money convincing small-town Middle America (basically everywhere that isn’t California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts) that THEY are the true Americans and that with hard work they are on the path to wealth and riches. They have them convinced that the Democrats are either going to steel their (non-existent) wealth and give it to “Non-Americans” (imigrants, minorities, welfare, criminals, whoever) or will make it difficult to impossible for them to start the small businesses they always thought about but never got around to. At the same time, the Republicans have also managed to absolve themselves of any culpability. The war in Iraq or the recent economic troubles are just unfortunate circumstances that must be weathered like an act of nature. Never mind the contributions their policies have made in causing or exacerbating the problems. > [@mks57](#): > > Can you say “tax and spend”? I’m not going to claim that the Republicans are a shining example of fiscal discipline, but some of them at least make an effort. When the Democrats are in power, budget problems seem to get “solved” by raising taxes. Right, things were so terrible under Clinton. What with that balanced budget and all those JOBS everyone had and everything. ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/62 "2008-10-20T15:46:20Z")
> [@welby](#): > > **Hentor** , I’m not sure I understand your argument. If **cosmosdan** makes his widget, sell it, and get rich why should that mean he owes anything more than anyone else? Sure, he used the mechanisms society put into place, but he got no special advanatge. He just made and sold a widget. If you’d made and sold said widget, you’d be the rich guy. And I’d also question why he has a moral obligation to provide _more_ than someone who didn’t come up with the widget. And if he is beholden to society, then he settle that debt through taxes and charitable giving (if he gives, not all do). What moral obligation has he to provide anything more? Because his ability to do business depends, disproportionately, on road and rail infrastructure, legal infrastructure, employment infrastructure, etc. For example, in addition to his equal citizen protections derived through the criminal justice system, his ability to do business successfully and flourish will depend on taking advantage of property and intellectual property - like being able to protect his widget’s design through intellectual property law and hold retail commercial leaseholds. He depends on corporations law, for the purpose of incorporation and limited liability. He receives security in the marketplace only by taking advantage of these. It is a fact that corporate and business interests tie up our courts more than individuals. You simply seem to be defining “more” from the basis of “pure” starting conditions, and then conjure a sense of theft from the self made man. There is no such thing. Nobody is denying Locke’s labour theory, but that is an atomistic fallacy. At heart we are social not atomistic. We all depend on the context of supported linguistic and cultural resources over time, which could not be possible in purely familial and tribal contexts. This context also depends crucially on certain institutions and traditions to survive. The very notion of the right of economic freedom, depends on certain threshold of agency and social context to make it coherent. You cannot have a right otherwise without it being meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/63 "2008-10-20T15:49:03Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Democrats are the party of Socialism. :rolleyes: **IF ONLY!** ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/64 "2008-10-20T15:50:48Z")
> [@welby](#): > > The point I was trying to make was that I recovered on my own, less the obvious benefit of a stable society. I’m not sure what conclusion you would have us draw from this; that everyone should be able to emulate your experience, without regard for their circumstances which may vary widely from yours? ---
**Author:** ![welby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@welby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/welby)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/65 "2008-10-20T16:21:42Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > Because his ability to do business depends, disproportionately, on road and rail infrastructure, legal infrastructure, employment infrastructure, etc. All of which are paid for in part by the additional taxes he pays on a higher income. In what way is he morally obligated to do anything beyond paying his taxes? > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’m not sure what conclusion you would have us draw from this; that everyone should be able to emulate your experience, without regard for their circumstances which may vary widely from yours? The conclusion would be that person has the opportunity to emulate my experience regardless of circumstances. The fact that some people have not or cannot does not morally obligate me to them in any way. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/66 "2008-10-20T16:34:23Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The mind of the person or people who conceived, designed and capitalized the company to produce them. Where else? > > The workers hired (and paid) by the person or people who conceived the product and created the company to produce them. > > The consumers who desire to purchase said widgets…and who wouldn’t be able to buy them if they were never conceived of and produced. > > Unless someone puts the thought into creating them all those workers will never have those jobs. Unless someone puts up the capital and takes the risks then all those workers won’t have those jobs. True, they may have OTHER jobs…but they won’t have the jobs that will open up to manufacture the new widgets. Unless someone does all the things necessary to bring those widgets to market the consumers won’t be able to purchase and enjoy those new widgets. True, they could buy other products…but they will never have these particular products. > > While certainly the folks who are capitalizing the effort and those who conceived and developed the product rely on workers to actually make it, the workers are more dependent on the capitalists than vice versa…because there are less capitalists and visionaries creating new industries or products than there are workers (skilled and/or unskilled) to produce them. > > And that’s what taxes are for. And our transport infrastructure benefits those workers at least as much as it does the companies…which is why we all pay for the creation and upkeep. After all, without that road infrastructure no one would get ANY products (or food, or fuel or…anything)…so it’s kind of a two way street there. So to speak. > > Not sure what you are getting at here. I assume it has something to do with marketing…and that you point has something to do with the media infrastructure in this country and how companies rely on it for advertising. Or something. Same point as the transport, as it’s not JUST companies who use it or benefit by it. > > It’s almost as silly as the concept that new companies and products spring out of the ground providing wealth and jobs like mana from heaven. Society creates the structure that allows for individuals to innovate and create…which in turn benefits society by providing jobs, new products and taxes. The transport infrastructure of course is multi-use, providing logistics for everyone, as well as person transport for people to use…which is why we all pay for it. Media infrastructure provides vectors for advertising (which companies pay for), and entertainment for people to use and enjoy. > > -XT The capitalists have more to lose if the system fails. I know this falls on deaf ears all the time, but you have to look at taxes as a form of insurance. You pay more car insurance on your Maserati than I would on my Subaru. Why? You have more to lose. While we all benefit from the existance of things taxes pay for like armies, police, fire dept, schools, roads, the “owners”/“capitalists” have more to lose, hence they have to pay more. You may counter with “they waste tax money”. Sure. But so does State Farm, GEICO, AIG etc; all organizations have inefficiencies and waste. Do you grouse when your insurance company throws money away on company outings? They all do it so you can’t drop one for another. You live with it. I dare say the capitalists are the ones who seem more entitled because they take for granted all the things that protect them and the system that lets them be bigger dogs than the rest of the pack, and don’t see the logic in having to pay more for that protection. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/67 "2008-10-20T16:45:49Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] The idea comes from a person’s mind, but you’re not suggesting that the actual widget itself does, are you? From your answers below, I take it that you aren’t, but this is an odd response to lead with. [/QUOTE] Well yes…that’s what I am saying. If I (or a team of people) conceive of a widget, then that widget is a product of either my own innovation or of the team I’m working with. I’m unsure why you think it’s otherwise. I can think of, say, an iPod, but until I actually develop it, prototype it, and figure out how to manufacture it (as well as market it and all the rest), it’s just an idea. Certainly others will help produce it…but they will produce it based on the production plan, designs and all the rest that I or the team come up with. Without all that what would the workers do exactly? > [@](#): > > Look, somehow you seem to be implying that I don’t think the individual should profit from their venture. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m just pushing back against the idea that any individual can sell 5 million widgets completely of their own accord. I’m not implying any such thing. I doubt you feel that individuals shouldn’t profit from a venture. What I think you are implying is that somehow businesses should pay extra…or are obligated in some extra way to do more. I think that’s where we disconnect. Certainly an individual or even a small team can’t produce 5 million widgets all on their own. It’s a team effort. Just like a professional football team isn’t all about one player. Everyone from the owner providing the capital to the coaches to the star players…all the way down to the water boy or the janitor who cleans the locker room…all have a role. However, their roles aren’t equal. Without the owner there is no capital for the team…so, no team. Owners are fairly rare. Without a good and successful coach the team doesn’t win. Successful coaches are fairly rare too seemingly. Without the star players teams have less chance to be successful…and high caliber players are fairly rare. Without all the OTHER players the stars can’t do much…and even good players in professional football are fairly rare. Then we get to the support staff. Collectively they are important, and some are even vital (trainers and doctors and such), but individually they are less important as their skills become more generalized. My point is that you seemingly want to ask the people most responsible for a company or a team to give more simply because they have more. To me this seems unfair, because without them there would be nothing at all. No widgets to produce or purchase. No jobs to make or distribute those widgets, etc etc. Understand I’m not saying that companies or owners should pay no taxes…for that matter I’m not saying that the current tax levels are optimal considering the economic situation we are in right now. While it pains me to admit, I think that some level of tax increase is going to be necessary to pay for all the fuckups done by the current administration. And I think a graduated system is fair as well, where you pay a smaller percentage as your income goes down or a larger percentage (to a point) as your income goes up. My problem is that what I seem to be hearing lately is almost a gleeful rubbing of hands at the prospect of totally soaking the rich and attempting to squeeze out of them everything that can be got…for the good of the people of course. Even McCain seems to be saying this. I think that, to be fair, if the rich are going to shoulder more taxes that everyone should shoulder more (proportionally of course). And at the same time I think it would be good if the government also did it’s part to balance the budget and keep spending down as much as possible…which would include getting us out of Iraq asap as well as (perhaps) Afghanistan and holding the line on new expensive programs until things start moving along again economically speaking. > [@](#): > > Exactly, and individuals can and are very well rewarded for those innovations and risks. But they also are beholden to the society that existed to provide ALL of the resources they took advantage of to generate that wealth. I see a moral and ethical obligation on the part of people who benefit so greatly to pay taxes to support the continued existence of that society that they benefitted from themselves. And I see it differently. I think that society provides all of those things because it’s in societies benefit…it’s not just a help for companies. Since we all benefit by providing those things I don’t see why a company or individual who takes advantage of those things to provide society with MORE benefits should have a ‘moral and ethical obligation’ to provide more or extra. Society already gains through the taxes we charge both the corporation and the individual owners and shareholders, as well as the jobs those corporations generate (and the taxes we collect from those workers), as well as the products or services they provide that we wouldn’t have gotten if those corporations or individuals hadn’t developed them. IOW, we’d still have the roads and all the rest (because we all use and need them too for myriad reasons) but no iPods…and no workers making iPods. So…society would not derive all the benefits we DO get because someone created that particular widget. -XT ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/68 "2008-10-20T16:47:04Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Right, things were so terrible under Clinton. What with that balanced budget and all those JOBS everyone had and everything. I’d just like to point out that Clinton’s presidency coincided perfectly with the internet boom. I’m not trying to denigrate him at all, but it is simply a fact that the robust economy was due in large part to the accident of the blossoming of a completely new phenomenon. It should also be pointed out that even this was inflated and the bubble had burst toward the end of his term. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/69 "2008-10-20T16:53:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well yes… > And I see it differently. I think that society provides all of those things because it’s in societies benefit…it’s not just a help for companies. Since we all benefit by providing those things I don’t see why a company or individual who takes advantage of those things to provide society with MORE benefits should have a ‘moral and ethical obligation’ to provide more or extra. Society already gains through the taxes we charge both the corporation and the individual owners and shareholders, as well as the jobs those corporations generate (and the taxes we collect from those workers), as well as the products or services they provide that we wouldn’t have gotten if those corporations or individuals hadn’t developed them. IOW, we’d still have the roads and all the rest (because we all use and need them too for myriad reasons) but no iPods…and no workers making iPods. So…society would not derive all the benefits we DO get because someone created that particular widget. > > -XT Again, you use the roads more, you have more to lose if the infrastructure goes belly up, therefore you need to pay more. Why is this so hard to understand? Do you argue with your car insurance company over the differing rates they charge for different vehicles? Should BMW owners be screaming that they shouldn’t pay more than the Hyundai owner? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/70 "2008-10-20T16:59:44Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > First, I contend, along with many, that the Republican party simply excels at getting people to vote against their own best interests. By that token, the Dems succeed at getting many wealthy people to vote against their own best personal interests, as well. Oh wait, the rich Dems who favor higher taxes are able to consider issues that may be more important to them then a few extra bucks in their pockets, but middle class Reps are unable to take into account other issues and place ideals above personal gain. Gotcha.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/71 "2008-10-20T17:03:25Z")
[QUOTE=BwanaBob] The capitalists have more to lose if the system fails. [/QUOTE] :dubious: How so? If the system fails we all fail. If the road infrastructure fails, for instance, you would starve…as would the capitalist. If a corporation fails then you would lose your job and the consumers would lose the products, services AND the taxes we as a society derive. The capitalist would lose their investment. Seems to me that society needs capitalists and corporations at least as much as capitalists and corporations need society. Both have everything to lose if either goes away. > [@](#): > > I know this falls on deaf ears all the time, but you have to look at taxes as a form of insurance. You pay more car insurance on your Maserati than I would on my Subaru. Why? You have more to lose. While we all benefit from the existance of things taxes pay for like armies, police, fire dept, schools, roads, the “owners”/“capitalists” have more to lose, hence they have to pay more. You may counter with “they waste tax money”. Sure. But so does State Farm, GEICO, AIG etc; all organizations have inefficiencies and waste. Do you grouse when your insurance company throws money away on company outings? They all do it so you can’t drop one for another. You live with it. I disagree with your assertion that capitalists have more to lose than society does, so obviously I’m in disagreement with your analogy. I think society as a whole benefits more from the infrastructure we publicly maintain than individual corporations do…and that we receive additional benefits in the form of the products or services a corporation provides, taxes on that corporation, jobs for our citizens, etc etc. The capitalist derives profits for the goods and services their company provides. However…if the climate is unfavorable for a business (i.e. if society demands too much) then said capitalist can always take his capital and play somewhere else. To use your analogy, if you are trying to gouge me because my car is more expensive than someone else, over and above what is reasonable considering the disparity in cost, if you feel I have a moral or ethical obligation to pay more, then I’ll simply go get my insurance somewhere else that has a more fair price. > [@](#): > > I dare say the capitalists are the ones who seem more entitled because they take for granted all the things that protect them and the system that lets them be bigger dogs than the rest of the pack, and don’t see the logic in having to pay more for that protection. Sure they do. And that’s why we have laws and such. To a certain degree it’s like my pro-football analogy. A star athlete (or the owner of the team or the coach) is going to feel they are more entitled because they know they are more vital to the running and success (or even the very existence) of the team than, say, the water boy. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/72 "2008-10-20T17:08:19Z")
Take it to its extreme then… If the infrastructure fails I lose my “worker” job and my life. You lose your “business ownership” and your life. You still lose more. Sadly, it is just like car insurance. BMWs to Hyundais. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/73 "2008-10-20T17:13:46Z")
[QUOTE=BwanaBob] Again, you use the roads more, you have more to lose if the infrastructure goes belly up, therefore you need to pay more. Why is this so hard to understand? [/QUOTE] Because I don’t accept that they have more to lose than you or I do if the infrastructure goes belly up? They would lose their business. You and I would lose our jobs, be unable to buy any goods or services that depend on that infrastructure, and probably starve to death. Seems to me that you and I have more to lose if the roads we all maintain go tits up. YMMV of course. As for road use, I’m not opposed to charging by use. If companies use heavy trucks and if they cause more wear and tear on the infrastructure then I have no problem with charging more for higher use…as long as it’s across the board and fairly done. If they are going to do that then we’d need to get rid of all the taxes that are currently being exacted for this though…and I think you’d find that corporations are already paying quite a bit toward this. Whether it’s their fair share (when contrast to the benefits we as a society also derive)…I’m unsure. > [@](#): > > Do you argue with your car insurance company over the differing rates they charge for different vehicles? Should BMW owners be screaming that they shouldn’t pay more than the Hyundai owner? Nope. I never said they should. It’s all about balance. If my car is worth more than I should pay more, proportionately, than someone who’s car is worth less. I have no problem with that. What I’m opposed to is trying to get something extra out simply because my car costs more, to use your example. That I’m morally or ethically obliged to pay MORE than the extra value of my car vs your car in terms of cost. And of course, your analogy doesn’t really work well since buying insurance isn’t on par with the additional benefits a corporation provides to a community or to society. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/74 "2008-10-20T17:16:43Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > Can you say “tax and spend”? I’m not going to claim that the Republicans are a shining example of fiscal discipline, but some of them at least make an effort. When the Democrats are in power, budget problems seem to get “solved” by raising taxes. An approach which worked well enough on Clinton’s watch; and the opposite approach on W’s watch has landed us in deep deficit doo-doo. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/75 "2008-10-20T17:19:25Z")
> [@gravitycrash](#): > > Oh God. Has there ever been a tax increase that a Democrat has been against? Obama saying no new taxes for people who make less than $250.000. > > I want any Democrat to stand up and say for the record that they believe that. Believe what? That Obama means it when he says it? Yes, I believe that. I see no reason not to. I do **not** believe it is necessarily the way things will be; he’s in for some surprises when he sits down and confronts what he actually has to do to rein in the deficit. > [@gravitycrash](#): > > Also I have noticed no mention of raising existing taxes from the new Messiah. It would make you feel better if you had? ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/76 "2008-10-20T17:27:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > …To a certain degree it’s like my pro-football analogy. A star athlete (or the owner of the team or the coach) is going to feel they are more entitled because they know they are more vital to the running and success (or even the very existence) of the team than, say, the water boy. > > -XT This is an argument for why the star should earn more than the waterboy; it has nothing to do with waterboy being taxed less than the star. If you truly believe the owner doesn’t have more at stake than the worker we will have to simply disagree and end this. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/77 "2008-10-20T17:29:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Because I don’t accept that they have more to lose than you or I do if the infrastructure goes belly up? They would lose their business. You and I would lose our jobs, be unable to buy any goods or services that depend on that infrastructure, and probably starve to death. Seems to me that you and I have more to lose if the roads we all maintain go tits up. YMMV of course. If there’s no infrastructure, what are the wealthy going to do - eat their statements? I think **BwanaBob’s** analogy is pretty apt, but without going to the doomsday scenario, just answer who has more invested in America staying strong, a temp or the owner of the company? If I’m a temp, I’m out exactly the same amount if there’s suddenly no more company or no more America. The owner and I can both go to Canada with our hats in hand to find a job there. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/78 "2008-10-20T17:29:32Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > Because his ability to do business depends, disproportionately, on road and rail infrastructure, legal infrastructure, employment infrastructure, etc. No, not disproportionately. Everyone in the US has the same access to the infrastructure to create wealth. Some successfully do so, others work for those who do. Others vote for politicians who promise to be Robin Hood. An important difference between liberals and conservatives tends to be focus on equality of opportunity vs. equality of results. Conservatives value the first much more than the second. > [@](#): > > For example, in addition to his equal citizen protections derived through the criminal justice system, his ability to do business successfully and flourish will depend on taking advantage of property and intellectual property - like being able to protect his widget’s design through intellectual property law and hold retail commercial leaseholds. He depends on corporations law, for the purpose of incorporation and limited liability. He receives security in the marketplace only by taking advantage of these. It is a fact that corporate and business interests tie up our courts more than individuals. I doubt that many conservatives object to the police function of government. And even the strictest libertarians have no trouble endorsing a government who enforces the law of contracts. But the idea that people should pay more towards services they take greater advantage of is a dangerous one. You may wind up arguing that poor people should pay more in taxes to support the welfare system, which they use more. But the notion that conservatives object to is not paying taxes in general, nor to the notion of paying for infrastructure and police and military and so forth. It is the idea that someone should be paying more taxes just because he makes more money than someone else. Therefore, simply stating that the rich as a class saw their income go up much faster than the poor or middle class does not impart (to me, at least) any sense of unfairness. As **Stratocaster** mentions, the idea that government ought to do something about income inequality is more or less taken for granted on the SDMB. It is not nearly so axiomatic among Republicans and/or the middle class. This has a number of underlying reasons - the lack of the impulse towards "He got more than me - no fair!', enlightened self-interest (people who get rich tend to employ a lot of other folks along the way), and also a certain empathy. “He worked his way up from nothing, and now he owns a successful business”. You can respond to that in several ways. One is “gee, maybe someday I can do the same”, or 'That bastard! Why should he have more than me?" > [@](#): > > > [@gravitycrash](#): > > > > Also I have noticed no mention of raising existing taxes from the new Messiah. > > It would make you feel better if you had? I’m pretty sure he has. I believe he has mentioned rescinding the Bush tax cuts more than once. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/79 "2008-10-20T17:34:41Z")
> [@](#): > > An approach which worked well enough on Clinton’s watch; and the opposite approach on W’s watch has landed us in deep deficit doo-doo. I have pointed this out too often to bother with cites. Clinton’s first action upon taking office was an attempt to increase the deficit. This effort was beaten back. The budget was never balanced until Republicans took control of Congress, and Clinton fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, including a shutdown of the federal government. The deficit jumped after 9/11 and the pop of the [dot.com](http://dot.com) bubble, trended steadily downward until Democrats regained control of Congress, and had since doubled. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531/80 "2008-10-20T18:14:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I have pointed this out too often to bother with cites. > > Clinton’s first action upon taking office was an attempt to increase the deficit. This effort was beaten back. The budget was never balanced until Republicans took control of Congress, and Clinton fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, including a shutdown of the federal government. > > The deficit jumped after 9/11 and the pop of the [dot.com](http://dot.com) bubble, trended steadily downward until Democrats regained control of Congress, and had since doubled. > > Regards, > Shodan Out of morbid curiosity, how do you justify Reagan’s tax increases of 1982 and 1984 (just to pick two) and how do you explain their deficit-reducing effects? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-middle-class-support-for-republicans/468531.md?page=5)