Democrats really "for the poor"?

ER · 11-05-2004, 2:56 PM

Thomas Sowell's latest

This guy is great; his columns should be required reading for all because he's so concise. Because most probably won't read the article, I'll snip from the front and sum it up:

Election frauds are nothing new and neither are political frauds in general. The oldest fraud is the belief that the political left is the party of the poor and the downtrodden.

The election results in California are only the latest evidence to give the lie to that belief. While the state as a whole went for Kerry, 55 percent versus 44 percent for Bush, the various counties ranged from 71 percent Bush to 83 percent Kerry. The most affluent counties were where Kerry had his strongest support.

In Marin County, where the average home price is $750,000, 73 percent of the votes went for Kerry. In Alameda County, where Berkeley is located, it was 74 percent Kerry. San Francisco, with the highest rents of any major city in the country, gave 83 percent of its votes to Kerry.

Out where ordinary people live, it was a different story. Thirty-six counties went for Bush versus 22 counties for Kerry, and usually by more balanced vote totals, though Bush went over 70 percent in less fashionable places like Lassen County and Modoc County. If you have never heard of them, there's a reason...

To sum it up - Baketech's Votes by County thread shows the more populated areas going to Kerry because that's where the higher-incomes are earned, and as Sowell pointed out, the higher-income counties voted Kerry. So why would the Democratic Party try to label itself as the "Party for the Poor" when those who are earning less voted for Bush?

His article changes directions and talks about why many Liberals are Liberals: they often don't live with the choices they're trying to make for everyone else.

sheepofblue · 11-05-2004, 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ER

Thomas Sowell's latest

This guy is great; his columns should be required reading for all because he's so concise. Because most probably won't read the article, I'll snip from the front and sum it up:

Election frauds are nothing new and neither are political frauds in general. The oldest fraud is the belief that the political left is the party of the poor and the downtrodden.

The election results in California are only the latest evidence to give the lie to that belief. While the state as a whole went for Kerry, 55 percent versus 44 percent for Bush, the various counties ranged from 71 percent Bush to 83 percent Kerry. The most affluent counties were where Kerry had his strongest support.

In Marin County, where the average home price is $750,000, 73 percent of the votes went for Kerry. In Alameda County, where Berkeley is located, it was 74 percent Kerry. San Francisco, with the highest rents of any major city in the country, gave 83 percent of its votes to Kerry.

Out where ordinary people live, it was a different story. Thirty-six counties went for Bush versus 22 counties for Kerry, and usually by more balanced vote totals, though Bush went over 70 percent in less fashionable places like Lassen County and Modoc County. If you have never heard of them, there's a reason...

To sum it up - Baketech's Votes by County thread shows the more populated areas going to Kerry because that's where the higher-incomes are earned, and as Sowell pointed out, the higher-income counties voted Kerry. So why would the Democratic Party try to label itself as the "Party for the Poor" when those who are earning less voted for Bush?

His article changes directions and talks about why many Liberals are Liberals: they often don't live with the choices they're trying to make for everyone else.

More poor = more serfs for Hollyweird thus Dems love the poor

EDIT: All kidding aside the government needs to get out of the wealth redistribution business and all would benefit (except government)

nedro · 11-05-2004, 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

More poor = more serfs for Hollyweird thus Dems love the poor

EDIT: All kidding aside the government needs to get out of the wealth redistribution business and all would benefit (except government)

Agreed. Self-determination is easily defeated by monthly handouts.

ER · 11-05-2004, 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nedro

Agreed. Self-determination is easily defeated by monthly handouts.

Absolutely, and I've been saying that for awhile (perhaps not directly on the board). But who's to blame? The politicians for promising something for nothing or the people who vote for the politicians who promise something for nothing?

Cowboy1600 · 11-05-2004, 8:04 PM

Your fk'n kidding right? In a society devoid of morals the government needs to maintain a minimum standard for those with less. If the government was to take a minimilist state 90% of the population of most 1st world countries would suffer terribly. If the government doesnt maintain an egalitarian society then those with all the money will? All we'd see is a shift in power from the government, to those who wield more money than the rest. Those with the bucks would effectively be the government. Good call people, just what we need. The most influencial country in the world being run by people with even greater ulterior motives than the people who run it now (if thats at all possible). Self determination doesnt work when those with the power arent interested.

As far as the dems wanting more serfs etc I dont know. What i do know however is the havoc that Bush is wreaking on the US economy is going to see many more people relegated to serfdom.

I dont believe in penalising people for making lots of money, but I believe that everyone deserves a minimum standard of living, even if the state needs to supply it.

figment · 11-05-2004, 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ER

His article changes directions and talks about why many Liberals are Liberals: they often don't live with the choices they're trying to make for everyone else.

and they always blame someone else for their situation. Its NEVER their problem.

sheepofblue · 11-05-2004, 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

I dont believe in penalising people for making lots of money, but I believe that everyone deserves a minimum standard of living, even if the state needs to supply it.

In short socialism. This system leads masses to settle for the little bit, since they can work hard and get only slightly more. However the truth that fails most people that are trapped by such a system is that hard work like knowledge tends to be cumulative. Thus the dirt job that you work hard at leads to better that leads to....

Now there are people that are incapable of caring for themselves and I believe it is the duty of those that have the means to aid this group. However while I believe this to be the correct and moral thing to do I am against forcing people to give what is theirs away. That is thievery even if legalized. Not only does this inspire the person providing aid to become disconnected and maybe even bitter it also cheats the person being helped as they feel the help is free and an entitlement rather than the good deed that should be appreciated.

Cowboy1600 · 11-05-2004, 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

In short socialism. This system leads masses to settle for the little bit, since they can work hard and get only slightly more. However the truth that fails most people that are trapped by such a system is that hard work like knowledge tends to be cumulative. Thus the dirt job that you work hard at leads to better that leads to....

Now there are people that are incapable of caring for themselves and I believe it is the duty of those that have the means to aid this group. However while I believe this to be the correct and moral thing to do I am against forcing people to give what is theirs away. That is thievery even if legalized. Not only does this inspire the person providing aid to become disconnected and maybe even bitter it also cheats the person being helped as they feel the help is free and an entitlement rather than the good deed that should be appreciated.

***I dont believe in penalising people for making lots of money, but I believe that everyone deserves a minimum standard of living, even if the state needs to supply it.*** Im not saying everyone must exist on a minimum amout regardless of what they make.

What that means is let people make their money, but have the government make sure those less fortunate have the minimum needed to live a feasible existance. Call it socialism if you like, I know how scared Americans are of that word.

This doesnt create a disincentive for people to work harder cause you will still end upway ahead if they work hard and are fortunate enough to get the breaks in life that help to advance.

As for the thievery crud....sure....whatever....

As you guys take it for gospel, have you read the constitution recently?

Amendment XVI - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

its not thievery cause your forefaters said it isnt, and they're infaliable.

Using this money to insure people have food to eat and a roof over their head is much better than blowing up "terrorists" thousands of kilometres away but you condone that. good work

sheepofblue · 11-05-2004, 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

***[b]
As you guys take it for gospel, have you read the constitution recently?

Amendment XVI - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

its not thievery cause your forefaters said it isnt, and they're infaliable.

Using this money to insure people have food to eat and a roof over their head is much better than blowing up "terrorists" thousands of kilometres away but you condone that. good work

Yes although I do not claim to know it as well as I should.

The 16th amendment (created Feb 16th 1913) was not created by our forefathers as were the first 10 however it is a lawful amendment that was adding following proper procedure. No it does not have anything to do with wealth redistribution but rather allows the income tax which prior to this was unconstitutional.

Defense of the country is one of few duties allocated to the federal government in the constitution, feeding the people is not. Again I believe in and practice charitable acts but it is wrong to force others to do so (if they choose to I will be the first to commend them though).

As far as infallible no that is why we have amendments

G-Force Junkie · 11-06-2004, 4:47 AM

Damnit, I know better than to get involved...Oh well.

"What that means is let people make their money, but have the government make sure those less fortunate have the minimum needed to live a feasible existance. Call it socialism if you like, I know how scared Americans are of that word."

And where do you think the government gets its money? From the hard working people who are forced to give it away. Thats BS. The "Less Fortunate" can continue to live in their meager lives, or decide to work harder, take risks, get more education or job skills, and work their asses off like the rest of hard workers do.

Cowboy1600 · 11-06-2004, 8:58 AM

So which would you rather be? living in a caravan exsisting on welfare or making $100,000 a year but paying 40% of it in tax? You still get rewarded for hardwork, but not everyone is in the position to support themselves, so who will? Maybe we could send them overseas with the military.

Some people dont want to work. So in order to stop these people exploiting the system lets take benefits away from everyone.

You crap on as tho its almost too easy to "work harder, take risks, get more education or job skills, and work their asses off like the rest of hard workers do." Well guess what? its not.

Have you ever been on welfare? Have you ever had to wait hours in a hospital? Have you ever had to seek assistance from non-government welfare agencies in order to eat, or pay rent? I doubt it. I have, hence why I think the wealth should be more evenly distrbuted, and the only way thats going to happen is by government intervention.

sheepofblue · 11-06-2004, 9:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Maybe we could send them overseas with the military.

Our military is all volunteer and I will add that the south provides a disproportionate % vs population. However I know many people that came from the military from high ranking officers to jeep mechanics and ALL benefited from the experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

You crap on as tho its almost too easy to "work harder, take risks, get more education or job skills, and work their asses off like the rest of hard workers do." Well guess what? its not.

No Cowboy it is not, I came to Alabama with no job and a totally crappie car and everything I owned in it. To get my college degree I worked 2 jobs with my short weeks being 55 hours while taking classes. I also lived in some pretty nasty houses (one so bad we played golf inside and it had zero heat) I did this for 8 years, it was worth it. Now I get the lazy couch sitters of the world figuring they are 'entitled to my earnings' so you might understand my sensitive spot here

. So I guess the thing I would pass to you is at 25 go and bust it, in the short run it is massive work in the long run you get leeches attached to you.

Oh and as far as food and eating I can remember more than one week where I has a package of cheese, tub of butter and loaf of bread for the week and sometimes it did not make it to the last day so I did not eat that day.

Good luck on your future Cowboy. Despite our current disagreement I believe you are headed to success (and the ability to help others) You seem an intelligent fellow that just needs a break (and they ALWAYS come to those that keep trying). Besides there is the saying that if you aren't a liberal when you are young you have no heart, if you are not conservative when you are old you have no brain.

Signed
The heartless sheepofblue