"Republicans Aren't Even Good for the Rich"

  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 20, 2009 11:18 PM GMT
    http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html (Republicans Aren't Even Good for the Rich)
    Excerpts: "Over this period of roughly the last three-quarters of a century, real disposable personal income for all Americans has grown nearly twice as fast under Democrats as under Republicans. (The annual mean growth in real disposable personal income under Republicans has been 2.3 percent; under Democrats, 4.3 percent.)"

    "Republicans have traditionally identified themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but over the last three-quarters of a century, Republican administrations have increased federal debt at a rate more than four times faster than have Democrats."

    This is what I don't understand... it's demonstrated FACT that republican/conservative economic policies are consistently detrimental to the nation, and yet somehow republicans continue to ignore the facts so that they can remain in their own fantasy world of failed conservative ideology. How can any one block out reality like this?
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Mar 20, 2009 11:26 PM GMT
    If you were to talk with real conservative Republicans, you'd find they profess not to want anything to do with the "Republicans" of the past several decades (at least from what rants I read occasionally by old-school fiscal conservatives who also want less government and stricter constitutional adherence --- They'll agree that the debt and federal expenditures have increased during those times, since those in power as Repubs weren't "real" Republicans.

    I'm NOT a Republican -- I'm just passing along observations. .
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Mar 20, 2009 11:32 PM GMT
    Given that all the growth in personal income over the past 30 years is built on a giant ponzi scheme which has started to collapse, neither party has a great track record.

    Americans may have more disposable income, but the average family debt went from 69% of income in 1980 to 140% today. So that income growth is a mirage.

    I am no conservative and think "free" (which has never been free) market and trickle down economics are as big failures as communism was but both parties contributed to the current problem.
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Mar 20, 2009 11:46 PM GMT
    I should also add that Republicans are good for the rich. Even if the incomes of all Americans grew faster under Dems than GOP governments, the incomes and assets of the top 10% and their assets grew quickly and their tax burdens were lowered. The wages and assets of the bottom 50% stagnated or shrunk over the past 8 years.

    What I have never understood is why those bottom 50% vote for policies that are so obviously against their self interest. An American friend told me that it was because many believed that they could become wealthy through the lottery or some other win so they envisaged themselves as part of the upper class and wanted lower taxes, or they really believed that American society was a meritocracy so the rich were somehow smarter or worked harder and deserved the break. Or that, while the culture warriors never succeeded in outlawing abortion, homosexuality or flag burning, they were able to distract these people while they outsourced their jobs and made them poorer. Or all three.

    Odd.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 21, 2009 3:28 AM GMT
    dantoujours saidI should also add that Republicans are good for the rich. Even if the incomes of all Americans grew faster under Dems than GOP governments, the incomes and assets of the top 10% and their assets grew quickly and their tax burdens were lowered. The wages and assets of the bottom 50% stagnated or shrunk over the past 8 years.

    What I have never understood is why those bottom 50% vote for policies that are so obviously against their self interest. An American friend told me that it was because many believed that they could become wealthy through the lottery or some other win so they envisaged themselves as part of the upper class and wanted lower taxes, or they really believed that American society was a meritocracy so the rich were somehow smarter or worked harder and deserved the break. Or that, while the culture warriors never succeeded in outlawing abortion, homosexuality or flag burning, they were able to distract these people while they outsourced their jobs and made them poorer. Or all three.

    Odd.


    Actually, the article demonstrates how even the top 10% did better under democratic administrations overall. (See the figures; they're pretty clear-cut.)

    The reason the bottom 50% votes in republicans, even though it is clearly against their best interest, is rather complex: The dream of becoming wealthy is part of it, as is the republicans' attachment to conservative social issues like anti-gay and anti-abortion policies. (Many moderate religious leaders see the republican party as merely using religion and conservative social causes to garner votes, not because they sincerely believe in those causes.) Then there's the idea that republicans are supposedly "fiscal conservatives" who will decrease spending and promote individual freedom. Of course, the last several generations of republicans have proven this is not the case at all.

    Education also plays a role, since other studies show there is a direct correlation between level of education and political views: The more educated one is, the more likely you are to be a democrat/liberal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 3:35 AM GMT
    Yet again, you rely upon editorial summations. HNN is biased like any "news" source. Self Appointed stylists of historical events to support their slant on the world. The articles are editorial pieces, not necessarily factual or objective.From their website:

    "Among the many duties we assume are these: To expose politicians who misrepresent history. To point out bogus analogies. To deflate beguiling myths. To remind Americans of the irony of history. To put events in context. To remind us all of the complexity of history.

    Because we believe history is complicated our pages are open to people of all political persuasions. Left, right, center: all are welcome.

    History News Network (HNN) operates independently of George Mason University. The views expressed are those of its authors and editors and not GMU or the Center for History and New Media."


    Stop. Please just Stop.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 21, 2009 3:41 AM GMT
    hotshotcdn saidYet again, you rely upon editorial summations. HNN is biased like any "news" source. Self Appointed stylists of historical events to support their slant on the world. The articles are editorial pieces, not necessarily factual or objective.From their website:

    "Among the many duties we assume are these: To expose politicians who misrepresent history. To point out bogus analogies. To deflate beguiling myths. To remind Americans of the irony of history. To put events in context. To remind us all of the complexity of history.

    Because we believe history is complicated our pages are open to people of all political persuasions. Left, right, center: all are welcome.

    History News Network (HNN) operates independently of George Mason University. The views expressed are those of its authors and editors and not GMU or the Center for History and New Media."


    Stop. Please just Stop.


    IInteresting that you didn't refute any of the actual content of the article, particularly the tables that compare the economic results of democratic and republican administrations--probably because it's hard to refute pure facts like that. You can ignore the rest of the article, the tables of factual data speak for themselves--and the answer they give is clear as crystal to any open-minded person. Of course, the answer they give also doesn't support the conservatives' preconceived notions, so they'll do what they do best--ignore facts that they don't like, and pretend they don't exist.

    Conservations hate when you present them with facts that contradict their worldview, but does that mean I'm going to stop? Hell no. icon_smile.gif Reality is hard sometimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 3:44 AM GMT
    Dude, I didnt even it read it. I can fire up open-office and create some tables and post them on the net, will that make them true?
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 21, 2009 3:47 AM GMT
    hotshotcdn saidDude, I didnt even it read it. I can fire up open-office and create some tables and post them on the net, will that make them true?


    Ah, didn't even read it... typical. Even easier to ignore facts you don't like when you don't bother to look at them. (And unlike the tables of data you or other conservative outlets could produce, these are backed by citations and references--you know, proof.) Thanks for proving my point by giving the typical republican response again and again--ignore and insult the truth, rather than face facts.