The Republican Party is Changing

[_Quasimodo]

Nope I'm not a Neo-Nazi, I'm just a Classical Liberal. We were the ones largely responsible for Nazism's defeat.

Trust me, you qualify.

I have many family members that were truly involved in the defeat of Germany in World War Two. None of them held the racist views that you do.

Racism and bigotry don't seem to get much support on this board. There must be someplace else that would find your crap more acceptable.

[_moksha]

This doesn't mean I don't want immigration or anything, but we have to admit a true American is a descendant of those British Protestants (usually of English or Ulster descent) who have founded this country, and no other.

Due to my own problems, I sometimes have trouble distinguishing between an excellent parody and rampant insanity. Which one is it, parody or insanity?

[_Yoda]

By highly educated do you mean social science education only to the exclusion of engineers, doctors, and computer sceintists (the people actually creating the wealth). Most of these upper middle class people I know are staunchly Republican. Most of them make under $100K/year but are just as angry about the crippling taxation as anyone in the above $200k category. They do offer PhDs. in something other than English or History.

Granted most lawyers are democrats or at least are good at pretending to be democrats until they get through law school. But I find a lot of lawyers to be Republican once they start working. They're just as angry about socialism as people in physical science oriented professions.

We are in that $100K per year bracket, and I can tell you, I, for one, am tired of being considered "too rich" to qualify for any type of college benefit for my kids. My daughter has been working and supporting herself for that past 3 years. She is 23. She has to count our income as part of her FAFSA until she is 24! This is ridiculous! She has not lived in our house for almost 4 years.

And, let me tell you, $100K isn't what it used to be. My Dad made $100K when I was growing up. We were considered upper middle class. The kids called us rich all the time. But the dollar went a lot further then than it does now. We own a modest home, have two nice cars which run, and owe no car payments on. But we hardly take lavish vacations, and are still scraping for gas money before the next paycheck.

Yes, I am grateful for our education, and for our jobs. I don't begrudge anyone who is struggling because I have been there. The job market is ugly. I would simply like to see everyone be able to work and provide for their kids.

[_Drifting]

I'm just curious and this isn't a loaded question but rather a legal question. In the current system, who decides who gets food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc. Is it a particular bureaucret's initial decision and then you're welcome to fight it if you can come up with the money to hire an attorney? I see attorneys advertising to take on such cases. I find it surprising that it's cost effective for attorneys to do so. I know I hear people say here that you usually get denied the first time you ask for food stamps, but if you go back and ask again you're usually approved with no questions asked. That's Louisiana. So many people hear both black and white are the ultimate experts at looking poor on paper.

I once needed surgery pretty bad after my mission. Of course the mission is not college and hence I had no health insurance when I returned. They didn't tell me outright on the phone that I would be denied. I had to go and wait a couple hours at the welfare office. Then I was taken into a room and told, "You're not a woman and you're not pregnant. Those are the only people covered." Thankfully I found a doctor even though I had to drive across the country to find one who would see me without insurance. He took cash and when I got a student loan to cover it, I was whole again. It was worth every penny of it. But it took over a year of being in pain before I could work it out. Did I just not know how to work the system right? Or was the simple truth what I've always initially expected about socialism under nearly any situation, that I didn't qualify.

Wouldn't the bigger question be to ask why God blessed you with this kind of problem after serving a mission for Him?

[_ajax18]

Yes, I am grateful for our education, and for our jobs. I don't begrudge anyone who is struggling because I have been there. The job market is ugly. I would simply like to see everyone be able to work and provide for their kids.

The job market is ugly. But I firmly believe that socialism would be much uglier.

[_hatersinmyward]

The job market is ugly. But I firmly believe that socialism would be much uglier.

So people can be Capitalists but just unsuccessful Capitalists? Sounds too much like Communism to me... Do you believe these Capital Commies blame their misfortune on the Fascists that put them in their situation? Right ajax18?

The solution to this problem is don't vote in a Daddy's Boy who's running for public office, Because he didn't earn it. So if the neighbor kid makes it to the lime light the only crimes he should be held accountable for are violent crimes. Crimes relating to Tax Fraud, Drug Possession, Disturbing the Peace and Disorderly Conduct shouldn't be Prosecutable against a real Capitalist.

[_ajax18]

As much as I relish a good argument and as much as I'd like to argue with ya'll the rest of the day, I've got a job to do. Wish me luck Quasimodo, your entitlement check depends on the labor of a capitalist racist bigot.

[_Bond James Bond]

By highly educated do you mean social science education only to the exclusion of engineers, doctors, and computer sceintists (the people actually creating the wealth). Most of these upper middle class people I know are staunchly Republican. Most of them make under $100K/year but are just as angry about the crippling taxation as anyone in the above $200k category. They do offer PhDs. in something other than English or History.

Granted most lawyers are democrats or at least are good at pretending to be democrats until they get through law school. But I find a lot of lawyers to be Republican once they start working. They're just as angry about socialism as people in physical science oriented professions.

We are in that $100K per year bracket, and I can tell you, I, for one, am tired of being considered "too rich" to qualify for any type of college benefit for my kids. My daughter has been working and supporting herself for that past 3 years. She is 23. She has to count our income as part of her FAFSA until she is 24! This is ridiculous! She has not lived in our house for almost 4 years.

And, let me tell you, $100K isn't what it used to be. My Dad made $100K when I was growing up. We were considered upper middle class. The kids called us rich all the time. But the dollar went a lot further then than it does now. We own a modest home, have two nice cars which run, and owe no car payments on. But we hardly take lavish vacations, and are still scraping for gas money before the next paycheck.

Yes, I am grateful for our education, and for our jobs. I don't begrudge anyone who is struggling because I have been there. The job market is ugly. I would simply like to see everyone be able to work and provide for their kids.

Liz here's a graph about income per household and income change per household. You're in one of those straight lines that don't look good when you look at the graph. What does that mean to you? 99% vs 1% looking like a legitimate argument?



Ready to tax the crap out the richest 1% yet? How about now?





Or now? I would estimate you're in the "fourth fifth" section of this graph. If so you're not wrong about having less money. You've lost wealth to inflation and stagnant wages.



I could go on. With the rise in tuition and home costs 100k obviously doesn't go as far as it used to. The problem is (as one of the graphs showed) not only are does your 100K not go as far but other people's salaries don't either. So as you've fallen most other people have fallen too. The only people who haven't fallen noticeably but only grown stronger are the top 1%. Everyone pines away for the "Golden Age" of the 1950s-60s when the husband could pay for a car, house, and tuition on one salary while mom stayed home but people forget that during those times:

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/up ... -20101.png

Tax rates were north of 70%. Part of the reason was that we (America) were paying off a huge war (*hint hint Iraq/Afghanistan wars hint hint*) but in practice things were better everywhere? Everyone short of Droopy I think would agree equality was better economically and because of that Americans had the disposable income to power the economy because money was in the pockets of everyone and not just the 1%.

Today we can't even get a modest tax increase on the 1%, not even a surtax of .5% on millionaires because the rich have brainwashed the people that they're job creators. The right-wing loves to use boogie man names like Saul Alinsky, but I think a real boogie man is Grover Norquist. Norquist is a lobbyist and part time comedian who holds Republicans hostage to a "no tax increase" pledge. That's the guy that won't let America work on it's national debt problem. Because the only way we're getting out of debt is to increase taxes. It's the only way. Even if we cut welfare, foreign aid, education, and the National Endowment for the Arts we're still going to have a huge deficit. That's because no one seriously can touch the top 3 of the budget; defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. I personally say lets keep them all...let's just increase taxes a bit on the people who aren't hurting. The richest 1%.

[_Quasimodo]

As much as I relish a good argument and as much as I'd like to argue with ya'll the rest of the day, I've got a job to do. Wish me luck Quasimodo, your entitlement check depends on the labor of a capitalist racist bigot.

No worries, ajax18. You're not working for my entitlement check. I don't get one. I'm probably more of a capitalist then you are. Self employed and earning my own living.

[Guest]

This doesn't mean I don't want immigration or anything, but we have to admit a true American is a descendant of those British Protestants (usually of English or Ulster descent) who have founded this country, and no other.

Due to my own problems, I sometimes have trouble distinguishing between an excellent parody and rampant insanity. Which one is it, parody or insanity?

Insanity and historical ignorance on your end. Unfortunately this has become the norm in our society. Saying the indigenous tribes are the only true Americans is wrong politically, historically, and culturally. The term native americanp was first used to distinguish Protestant Whites who founded this country from Catholic white ethnics.