Yes, I agree that many companies get tax breaks, but most of these are not a result of the President whomever he/she is. For example most of Boeings tax cuts are due to the demcratics here in Washington state. They gave the residents of the state of Wa. the burden. I am sure there are other examples and some are a result of the republicans. I am a part owner of a s-corp. in Nevada, mainly because that state gives great tax breaks to business.
Election determines fate of nation
- Thread starter indy_85stariones
- Start date
"Here's an idea: all for one....one for one! (F@ck the French with their....all for one..one for all.) To each his own. F@ck this community bullshizzy, let's be rocks and islands. Pay for your own kids to be taught, pave your own roads to the corner. Disability? F@ck you, it's your own damn fault. Old People? Get the hell out the way and quit soaking up our resources...we're more into what's better for us. The lower the taxes the better....I'm not paying any! National defense and miliary be gone...I bought a shot gun."
-----the quote was just a thought
-----the quote was just a thought
Last edited:
With the exception of the "white male" and supporting Bush, YOU just described LOWer income neighborhoods that have many people that are SOOOOO educated that some can't even teach their own children to read. This is the "affluant and educated" cities (New York, LA, Boston, Chicago...) that generally support KERRY - not Bush.
Strange, I have many friends here in Midwestern Indiana that support Bush. Let's see, one has an MBA from Butler University, another with Masters degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue, another with Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering from North Carolina State, another with a Law Degree (I can't remember which school), and I almost forgot my friend with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue.
Nice try, but riddle me this...
Whenever the Democrat party is in control of "gerry-mandering" the voting districts -- Why is it, that all of rich-affluent neighborhoods are grouped together with the Republican party and all of the poor, crime-stricken neighborhoods are grouped together with the Democrat party?
Sorry, I had to shoot down your theory that the affluent, educated, economic prospereous people support only Kerry.
Besides, back in 2000, when the Democrats were trying to conduct selective recounts in Florida -- Why did the Democrat party choose only the economically poor districts to perform the recounts?
Nice try, but riddle me this...
Whenever the Democrat party is in control of "gerry-mandering" the voting districts -- Why is it, that all of rich-affluent neighborhoods are grouped together with the Republican party and all of the poor, crime-stricken neighborhoods are grouped together with the Democrat party?
Sorry, I had to shoot down your theory that the affluent, educated, economic prospereous people support only Kerry.
Besides, back in 2000, when the Democrats were trying to conduct selective recounts in Florida -- Why did the Democrat party choose only the economically poor districts to perform the recounts?
Good question, Bryan, you got me. Maybe rural, less affluent people support Republican economic policies to their own detriment because they hope to one day be rich. Maybe they're masochists, who knows. Or maybe they support a Yalie and Harvard Business School MBA graduate from Massachussetts because he chops wood on a ranch in TX when he's not vacationing in Kenebunkport (sp?). Perhaps it's just Coke vs. Pepsi, nobody is interested in blind taste tests anymore....pick the sugar water whose packaging you like most.
I mean, you can't even have a conversation about the differences in the demographics of the supporters without Stupid-is-as-Stupid-Does coming into the fray, turning all facts upside down. There must be a certain appeal amoung some to the idea that intellectuals are stupid, plain spoken stupidity is better, and if you don't like inconvenient facts, just ignore them or make up new ones highlighting...say...your personal experience over....say....reality.
I mean, you can't even have a conversation about the differences in the demographics of the supporters without Stupid-is-as-Stupid-Does coming into the fray, turning all facts upside down. There must be a certain appeal amoung some to the idea that intellectuals are stupid, plain spoken stupidity is better, and if you don't like inconvenient facts, just ignore them or make up new ones highlighting...say...your personal experience over....say....reality.
Last edited:
If you read the reference to the article, it stated that:
According to Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers, white working-class voters male and female made up 55% of voters in 2000. If we define "working class" as people without a college degree, then three-quarters of Americans are working class. Three-fourths of the population is also white, so white working class voters make up 55% of those casting votes. See Why the White Working Class Still Matters, New York: Basic Books, 2000.
By this estimate only 25% of the population is educated.
It would only make sense that a majority of the voter for Bush would be working class people, without an education.
I asked for references because what you stated doesn't make sense. The democratic party has alway been know as the defender of the poor.
I was still unable to get the poll from your link, but was able to find many pro-democratic links.
Maybe you see this all the time because that's what your looking for.
It's too easy for someone to manipulate polls by excluding data - where was this poll taken? In a mostly democratic state?, republican state? is it a sample from across the US? It doesn't say and I can't find it.
How about this link: Voter Values Determine Political Affiliation
From the above article:
"The changes have not produced a full-scale reversal of the two parties' traditional constituencies. In the bottom half of the income levels, the Democratic Party remains strong among African Americans, Hispanics and white union members, while GOP support has swelled among nonunion whites. In the top half, there has been a realignment of white, well-educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics), now one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies. But Republican loyalties have strengthened among small-business men, managers and corporate executives. "
According to Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers, white working-class voters male and female made up 55% of voters in 2000. If we define "working class" as people without a college degree, then three-quarters of Americans are working class. Three-fourths of the population is also white, so white working class voters make up 55% of those casting votes. See Why the White Working Class Still Matters, New York: Basic Books, 2000.
By this estimate only 25% of the population is educated.
It would only make sense that a majority of the voter for Bush would be working class people, without an education.
I asked for references because what you stated doesn't make sense. The democratic party has alway been know as the defender of the poor.
I was still unable to get the poll from your link, but was able to find many pro-democratic links.
Maybe you see this all the time because that's what your looking for.
It's too easy for someone to manipulate polls by excluding data - where was this poll taken? In a mostly democratic state?, republican state? is it a sample from across the US? It doesn't say and I can't find it.
How about this link: Voter Values Determine Political Affiliation
From the above article:
"The changes have not produced a full-scale reversal of the two parties' traditional constituencies. In the bottom half of the income levels, the Democratic Party remains strong among African Americans, Hispanics and white union members, while GOP support has swelled among nonunion whites. In the top half, there has been a realignment of white, well-educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics), now one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies. But Republican loyalties have strengthened among small-business men, managers and corporate executives. "
Acutally his "theory" was that if you take an equal number of educated voters in one group and a then the other group of non-educated working class, that the "educated class" would, by majority, support Kerry. The "working class" would, by majority, support Bush. In fact, he said
He didn't say at all that educated people only supported Kerry.
They are the people who had problems voting, punching the wrong holes for the wrong candidates. Their votes needed to be recounted. I'm not sure why you brought this up anyways. I'm not sure the Democratic party had 100% of say in who was recounted, and even so, Gore still got the majority vote. Case closed.
They are the people who had problems voting, punching the wrong holes for the wrong candidates. Their votes needed to be recounted. I'm not sure why you brought this up anyways. I'm not sure the Democratic party had 100% of say in who was recounted, and even so, Gore still got the majority vote. Case closed.
Now that I have re-read the UCONN study, yes I agree the "working class" would, by majority, support Bush.
If what John Edwards has written on his own website is true, then this is very good news.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=481
Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.
Given that Bush has the support of "The America" that reaps the reward, that gets the tax breaks, whose children are set for life, and that buys anything it wants...
and given that Bush's core support comes from the "working class" -- the class that has membership in our strong U.S. Labor Unions, the class that historically votes for candidates of the Democrat Party...
If these two givens turn out to be true, then Bush is certainly destined to be re-elected.
If what John Edwards has written on his own website is true, then this is very good news.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=481
Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.
Given that Bush has the support of "The America" that reaps the reward, that gets the tax breaks, whose children are set for life, and that buys anything it wants...
and given that Bush's core support comes from the "working class" -- the class that has membership in our strong U.S. Labor Unions, the class that historically votes for candidates of the Democrat Party...
If these two givens turn out to be true, then Bush is certainly destined to be re-elected.
Again, You're doing what the majority of conservatives do. The topic Bryan posted is about Working class (non-educated) citizens Vs. Educated citizens. Also note, in my post I put "working class" in quotes for a reason. My dad has a masters degree as a material engineer, but he is still "working class."
Instead of calling it "working class," we should split it up between Lower class, Middle class, and upper classes of soceity. I understand that the majority of posters here are probably Upper class, and support Bush. Upper class citizens are the ones who get tax breaks, or earn enough to not really worry about taxes. I personally get 40% taken out of my paychecks working for shitty money at staples... thats 40% with 0 dependents.
I would consider my own family to be Upper middle class becuase of the region we live in, my parents net salary, etc. We definitely don't have it "easy", but we aren't starving or constantly worrying about how we are going to pay bills (except tuition...eeeeek). When the government gives tax breaks, they end up being bullshit and meaning nothing to us.
Take the child tax credit for example. In 2003, I was 17 but born before 1987 - obviously, since 17 years before 2003 would be 1986. My parents got a $400 tax credit for my sister, 15 at the time, and thats it. "Whooptie-freakin-doo"... That's like a months worth of groceries.
Instead of calling it "working class," we should split it up between Lower class, Middle class, and upper classes of soceity. I understand that the majority of posters here are probably Upper class, and support Bush. Upper class citizens are the ones who get tax breaks, or earn enough to not really worry about taxes. I personally get 40% taken out of my paychecks working for shitty money at staples... thats 40% with 0 dependents.
I would consider my own family to be Upper middle class becuase of the region we live in, my parents net salary, etc. We definitely don't have it "easy", but we aren't starving or constantly worrying about how we are going to pay bills (except tuition...eeeeek). When the government gives tax breaks, they end up being bullshit and meaning nothing to us.
Take the child tax credit for example. In 2003, I was 17 but born before 1987 - obviously, since 17 years before 2003 would be 1986. My parents got a $400 tax credit for my sister, 15 at the time, and thats it. "Whooptie-freakin-doo"... That's like a months worth of groceries.
Abdoman said:
Since your a Democrat, quit bitch'in. It's not like the Democrats are ever going to lower your taxes.
Become Republican so your taxes will be lower or move!
![[hihi]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_hihi.gif "Hi Hi [hihi]")
Become Republican so your taxes will be lower or move!