Forum Post: Republicans vote against their own best interest
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 5:46 a.m. EST by BrainC
(400)
from Austin, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
How?
How specifically is voting Republican voting against an individuals best interest?
I understand if you are on welfare how that could be true, yet what about the working class, middle class and/or a business owner.
Please do not speak in cliches and/or talking points.
Republicans are against the estate tax. Propagandized under the term "death tax".
This tax is meant to regulate generational wealth. Which if left unchecked leads inevitably to oligarchy/plutocracy, the result being loss in the power of voting.
So, by voting republican, and not being in the 1%, these people are inherently decrease the value of their vote...
Oh, that's an easy one, here in Ohio (a republican state) teachers, fire fighters, and cops that were republican voted for Kasick, Kasick then tried to strip them of most all labor rights by passing SB 5( which we repealed)
Teachers, firefighters and Police that voted republican, voted AGAINST their own self interest.
But many many many, will NEVER do that again
I can see how you could make that connection.
Don't ask for input specifically on voting Republican if you don't want to hear the Democrats answers. Like it or not, there's a lexicon of politics that says in "cliches" what takes volumes of unnecessary explanation to say otherwise. You may as well ask what the virtues of light are, then say "but don't speak in cliches about the dark."
In any event, wealth disparity and "hands-off governing" are goals of the Republican Party. Shrinking government services and favoring the rich simply creates more poor people. This weakens the consumer base (i.e., the Middle Class), our tax revenue shrinks and social programs weaken even further. So instead of saving the nation money, it ultimately costs us dearly in human and economic terms. Specifically, if revenues shrink due to unemployment, we can't pay police, teachers, road crews, construction companies, medicare/medicaid, and myriad "safety net" programs. The burden falls on those who CAN pay, raising their costs (such as insurance premiums and co-pays), and costs of doing business, as ALL prices inflate. Lack of consumer demand further burdens the economy, feeds more people into the unemployment and social services roles, further straining the system. It becomes an inevitable downward spiral, with more and more wealth held by people who pay insufficient taxes to sustain the system, thus creating more people who need services from that system, until (if left unchecked) we will have a wealthy "ruling class", and essentially nothing left but a "peasant class".
You can try to reinvent the wheel totally from scratch, but you will inevitably end-up with the same "cliche" issues it took people JUST LIKE #OCCUPY centuries to define. If you fix the system we have, it won't take years of escalating conflict to achieve what millions of people have ALREADY suffered to create: A good (not perfect) system that WAS helping millions of people, until 30+ years ago, when the Republicans began willfully dismantling that system. Demand politicians that are not under the thumb of special interests, that don't make backroom deals, and that can be removed from office without 10's of millions of dollars flushed into a broken electoral system.
First off, I have been busy since I posted this thread, I do appreciate your response. I am actually about the watch the 2+ hour long video below, to see what it contains. Also, I did correct my misspelling above. I am glad you understood I meant cliche, not cliques. Damn spell check.
Concerning your post above. I understand how higher unemployment will bring about all of the points you mentioned, however, your post says wealth disparity and "hands-off governing" are goals of the Republican Party. Shrinking government services and favoring the rich simply creates more poor people.
How? How does Republican policy create more poor people? How does shrinking government services create fewer jobs? Besides the actual government worker that would find themselves without a job because of downsizing the government. Or is that the employed you are talking about?
Without the premise of the Republican policy creating more poor people, the rest of the downward spiral is a mute point.
Check this out:
http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Notice the correlation between inequality and Republican tax cuts. Inequality on this level means the squeezing unto destruction of the middle class. Trickle-down economics is a lie.
The most prosperous time in our history, corresponding with the greatest relative equality and the growth of a stable middle class, was the 40s-70s - the "liberal consensus" years. Voting this out and Reagan and his neoliberal, union-busting, tax-cutting Reaganomics in, was definitely against our best interests.
So in short what the link is saying is that the cut in the capital gains tax was responsible for the great depression and for our economic crisis now? And when they raised the capital gains tax in '34, everything returned to normal?
I do agree with an Economic stimulus packages that rely on increased government borrowing will simply be rubbing salt in the wound.
However, I have differing information on what you have said. Not to argue, because I am truly looking for information, rather than give information. It is my understanding that WW2 brought us out of the depression, and after WW2, the US was the only nation with an industrial complex not harmed by war, which kept us prosperous through the 50's. and the US started into a recession in '75, prior to Reaganomics.
The reason I point this out, is again, not to argue, but to give creditably to my next statement. Isn't what you are saying subjective?
I do agree with closing tax loop holes used by corporations. Even Reagan did that with TEFRA act in 1982.
You clearly do want to argue.
The only point I wanted you to take from the data was the correlation between inequality and the Reagan tax cuts. I happen to also agree with the rest of the analysis.
The New Deal and related tax policies were clearly working in 1940 when unemployment had decreased and GDP and industrial output had increased every year between 1933-1940, save for 1938 when FDR reverted some of his policies. WW2 itself was a massive Keynesian spending program.
The postwar years could have gone back to the inequality and economic instability of the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20s (we had major increases in growth during those period comparable to the postwar years) but because of tax, labor, and other social/fiscal policies that wealth was distributed widely and prosperity was relatively equal - until 1980-1982, which you can clearly see from Brian's charts.
Well, with the exception of arguing about my intent to argue....LOL, which I will prove...
I understand what you are saying. Republican pro corporate policies widens the economic gap between classes, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, which creates economic instability leading to a recession, eventually a depression. So in voting Republican, one is voting for a recession, or potential recession, or an economic down turn. It that is in a nut shell?
I do appreciate you giving details. So many times I get answers such as, Republicans are making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Or worse, simply, the Republicans hate the poor. This is an example of the cliches I am trying to avoid. They tend to sound too much like political scare tactics. So again, I appreciate your details.
See, no argument. :)
Yep, that pretty well sums up my argument, for whatever it's worth. Sorry about my "tone" previously. You know how it is around here, it's difficult to know what kind of conversation you're having at any given moment...
Cheers. :)
I disagree. I think that the atmosphere around here is peaceful and invit.... I cant even say it with a straight face. You are right, it is down right hostile at times.
take care.
because republican policies shrinks the middle class; the only class that has the luxury to be consumers. trickle down economics takes from the middle and gives a small percent to the working poor, and pockets the rest for investment but the wealthy. But because a bigger return on investment is only found over seas, the middle's taxes are being shipped over seas, which stagnates our economy. economics has to be seen through the lens of ecology. or trickle up economics. trickle up economics creates a robust middle class, giving investors incentives to invest here, while giving working class people inspiration to exceed.
I can see your point on the first 1/2 of your comment, especially in today's day and age with NAFTA, India and China. Jobs and goods are being manufactured oversees, rather than creating jobs and industry locally. I also think that any tax breaks, financial incentive, stimulus, bailout that businesses receive are going to be held in reserves rather than spent. Everyone, businesses and households, are trying to make sure they have enough money in reserves to outlast the recession.
I can also see a benefit to trickle up. If the middle class had more money, they would spend more, businesses would have to produce more, etc, etc...
Yet, what would trickle up look like? Lowed taxes on the middle class? More social programs for the middle class and lower class? The money would obviously have to come from somewhere.
higher taxes on the wealthy, higher minimum wages for the working class, and less of a percentage of wealth taxed on the middle class would be what it looks like. but if i'm not seeing negative consequences for the majority of people, please help me realize the error of my thinking.
As I have been saying for, well forever, it is an ideology. So it is what one believes will work. So with that said, this is obviously just what I think and we can all dig up facts to prove anything we want.
On minimum wage. I believe that raising the minimum wage works for a little while and then hurts. When it is raised, those making minimum wage will get a higher paycheck, and higher spending power. Yet once the market adjusts to the new low, they return to the same buying power they had before.
So if they work for an hour and get $5, they can buy 5 loaves of bread. Raise the minimum wage to $10, they can buy 10 loaves. Yet since the bread company has to pay higher wages, the cost of bread will go up, so soon a loaf will cost $2, and they are back to being able to only buy 5 loaves.
However, take the people that are retired and on a fixed income. They are living off of $200,000. They use to only pay $1 for bread, but now it has doubled in price. What use to be 200,000 worth of buying power is now only 100,000 worth of buying power.
why, all i'm doing is redistributing the money that is already in the system. prices go up when more dollars are chasing fewer goods. I'm not suggesting we print more money. that is what the government is doing.
I believe that businesses do not lose money. So for example, someone is making hamburgers for $5 an hour, and the business is selling that hamburger for $6. If you raise their pay to $10 an hour, the business will raise the price of the burger to $12. They pass that cost onto the consumer.
Here is why. The burger owner has an addiction to snickers and wants 6 a day. He runs the business and and sells 6 burgers, making $6 profit. He goes and buys his snickers. The snickers salesman has a burger addiction. He only wants 1 a day. He takes the $6 he just made and goes and buys a burger from the burger guy. Well, now the price of a burger has increased to $11 ($10 for the worker, $1 profit). The burger guy sells 6 and buys his snickers, but when the snickers guy goes to buy his burger... opps, it now costs $11. the snicker guy is going to charge $1.85 for a snickers, so that he can afford his burger. Now the burger guy has to adjust, back and forth back and forth until the burgers cost $12 and the snickers cost $2. Yet we are back where we started, except everything has doubled in price.
This is fine for the burger guy, and the snickers guy and the worker, yet someone of a fixed income, as in retired, they have a problem. If they saved $600 and planned on living 100 more days, and having a burger a day, now they can only afford burgers for 50 days.
but isn't a person's taxes figured in when determining a profit margin. once the middle classes' tax burden is reduced and the minimum wage earner's raise is factored in, if done right, should leave the business at a dollar profit per unit. take 5 dollars from the 1 percent and give 3 to the middle, and two to the workers. and the split is negotiable.
I was taking minimum wage by itself, on its own, without the tax reduction. My bad.
So raise taxes on the wealthy so you can lower taxes on the middle class?
So for each dollar you lower in taxes on the middle class you take a dollar from the wealthy. And for each dollar you raise the minimum wage, you take from the wealthy to give to the middle class in tax reduction, to cover the costs.
Is that about the sum of what you are saying?
this may be a little controversial, but i believe the bureaucracy, which fell asleep at the wheel, should take a lower cut than the workers, who were at the whim of "market forces." and I use that word disparagingly.
I agree that the gov't should take a lower cut.
I would actually prefer to look at government spending at all levels. BTW, this does not necessarily mean cut social programs. Yet there are several programs out there that can be reduced, at least reviewed.
sounds logical, and i'd even add that those that are in the most debt get a bigger cut. keep it fair.
I think it would be closer to, take $7 from the 1%, $2 to the government bureaucracy, $3 to the middle class and $2 to the worker.
Would you agree that a dollar goes into the bureaucracy and less comes out?
Regardless, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. Call it closing the tax loopholes for the rich and I think we are in the same ball park.
I outlined various problems with the repelican party dating back several years.
The general thing is they tell the biggest lies . . .
But here:
http://zendogblog.net/blog/
Upon the Question of Default of Our National Debt July 6th, 2011
I tried to inject a bit of humor - and you know - since I really don't have one . . .
I read the blog. It is articulate and an interesting read.
Well thanks.
ZenDog, I never did get a response on my question below. I am not trying to goat you into a argument, I am just truly curious.
Tell you what, you can answer the question with a yes or a no, and I will respond with an Okay. Then there would be no discussion or argument about it.
Sorry - I've been busy. I was on this Am for a couple of hours and then had other stuff to do. I'll try to respond when folks ask reasonable and pertinent questions.
And to answer yours, I just read an article that is worth the read.
"Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult"
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
This guy says exactly what I've been saying for years. Only he is an insider. He does it with a lot more intelligence and precision than I can.
Alright. I will read through it when I get a chance. Thank you and Regards
So let me ask you a personal question. Do you believe that the Republican politicians are knowingly doing things that hurt the economy? Are they conscience of the outcome of their decisions? Making these decisions in order to help big business, or their friends, regardless of the outcome?
I realize it sounds like three questions, it is really only one, three different ways for clarification.
Note I referred to Republican politicians, in which I mean those in congress, not the voters or the citizens.
Yes I do believe that. Absolutely. They know exactly what they are doing.
okay. I am also reading through the link you provided.
thank you for your answers.
The premise of your question is wrong and therefore not worth a thoughtful reply.
so you are saying that voting Republican is NOT voting against ones own best interest?
Correct.
Yeah. I got that one right. +1 to me.
So let me ask you a personal question. Do you believe that the Democratic politicians are knowingly doing things that hurt the economy? Are they conscience of the outcome of their decisions? Making these decisions in order to gain political power, or help their political base, regardless of the outcome?
Note I referred to Democratic politicians, in which I mean those in congress, not the voters or the citizens.
I would have to agree with all your questions with the inclusion of RINO's . Democrats never seem to consider or maybe don't care about the unintended consequences of their good meaning regulations,laws or whatever. A lot of blame can be affixed to Dems but some of the Reps are also guilty as well.
Well thank you for answering that.
[Removed]
All right. I stopped at about 45 minuted in when the guy was talking about the Wealth of Nations, and the invisible hand that controls the market system, and he started referring to God and how the authors believed that God governs the market. He then started saying that Smith and Locke believed that the death of children was acceptable because it was God controlling the market in an attempt to bring equilibrium to supply and demand.
I can see how that movie is made to make people consider the economic culture we current have in the US, and we should consider changing it from a money based society to a socially compassionate society.