HA ha...
and the RATS take another one in the...
Posted on 08/30/2006 2:26:14 PM PDT by katieanna
$23,700. That is the household income level at which a white person became more likely to vote for a Republican over a Democrat in congressional races in 2004. That's $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four, less than half the median income of the typical voting household of all races, and an emphatic repudiation of all things Democratic among the white middle class. Obtaining a sustainable Democratic majority in either house will be impossible unless there is a significant change in this economic tipping point.
To solve this problem, Democrats must first realize that they have a problem - no, actually a crisis - with the middle class. Democrats - the self-described party of the middle class - have not won the middle class vote in at least a decade. Among all voters with $30,000 to $75,000 in household income, Bush bested Kerry by six-points and congressional Republicans won by four-points. Democrats continued to win nine of ten black voters of all income levels, but Hispanic margins have decreased as their economic situation has improved. And as noted
I'm not convinced the Middle Class loves the Republican Party--they've just decided they have nowhere else to go. They look at who the Dems pander to, and they see themselves as being the target of all the hate the Dems churn up with their talk about "empowerment" and "the haves and have-nots". They realize the Dems want what they've got to redistribute to those who didn't work for it. Unlike the rich of both parties, the Middle Class works and lives among the lower class every day, and they see where their "social service" tax dollars go, and then from the Dems they hear "We need more!" They're not willingly leaving the Dems--they're being pushed out, and the Republicans are the only port in the storm.
To put this into perspective, that's $11.68 an hour.
Nothing like the RAT party wanting to keep people in poverty so they can capture their votes.
This is a clear and smart examination of the Dem disconnect. All I can say is, Don't listen to this writer, Dems!
I have no fear Democrats will take this article's good advice. They're stuck on miserable.
The Dems problem is that they want to turn that $27,500 household into a $13,750 household after taxes. Until they correct that problem they are left with the moonbats and the poverty pimps.
My daughter struggles from day to day waitressing in NYC. She's a liberal democrat on a lot of issues. Even she, at 23, does not see a problem with people making high salaries. They are the people who eat out, open restaurants, leave tips, etc. Yet the "People vs. Powerful" class warfare is embedded in the Dim propaganda. Why Little Johnny Edwards is the most upbeat candidate they have and he's full of that crap.
A lot of people are trying to live day to day, providing for their families. They don't want to hear that they're destroying the Earth by mowing their lawns or commuting in the suburbs. The don't want to feel guilty about throwing something in the trash. They don't see the biggest problem in education as the lack of support for gay marriage, as the NEA does. They don't think they're undertaxed. They don't think five years of keeping the terrorists at bay is evidence that we're not safe. They can differentiate between civil rights and illegal immigration. They don't celebrate the slaughter of the unborn and know, deep down, that it's taking an innocent human life.
In short, accepting the Democrat worldview means comitting to being miserable, all the time. Less than a third of the U.S. is willing to do that.
Or at least I hope so. LOL
All the time I have to tell independents and Republicans unhappy with Bush that they have a choice to make. Either they agree with the liberal agenda or they don't. "Voting the bums out of office" is fool's gold. Both parties are pretty clear on where they stand. Either you agree with most of what they stand for or you don't. Case closed.
If you don't like the "bums" they put up for office change that - not parties. Unfortunately most Americans build on sand when it comes to core principles which is the only explanation I can come up with on why we have so few voters and so many independents.
I had the same problem with Bush on issues of spending and illegal immigration but I was not foolish enough to believe that voting for Kerry would have done me or my agenda any good.
The Dems' problem in a nutshell. Well done.
The Dems go down, the Dems go down! 1....2....3....4....
Friend, I am glad you're enjoying the article. It is a good read isn't it? The strategists do seem to have a handle on what their problems are.
I think you are right about the middle class deciding they've no place else to go. I come from a family of democrats and my family does not subscribe to the misery mentality.
Cheers!
Truer words have not been spoken...
Indeed, Dilbert. This article is hard-hitting for sure.
I have heard people on television, radio and elsewhere suggest that the GOP is at risk to lose the House and Senate; yet this article captures my thoughts entirely. As you rightly intoned, 'a list of grievances is not a plan'. I have yet to hear anything from democrats that would inspire voters that they have a plan to improve their lives or our country.
What you wrote about your daughter rings very true as well. There are many workers who struggle as she does, but do not hate the rich and in fact, she likely aspires to be rich one day herself.
Glad you enjoyed the article.
Peace. Kate
The Democratic Party is the party of the self-designated "poor" - and of the rich. Average that out and you get "middle class" - but then, you can drown trying to wade a river with an average depth of three feet.The Republican Party is the party of the middle class. But that doesn't mean that all middle class voters vote Republican, any more than the red states are 100% Republican.
But history shows that revenue is very weakly or even negatively related to tax rate. Typical Democratic fool's gold.
Assuming 1,000 taxpayers with standard distribution of income and taxes:
First 500 pay $001.00 taxes/person total of ...$ ..500.00
Next 400 pay $011.09 taxes/person total of ...$ 4,436.42
Next 090 pay $050.69 taxes/person total of ...$ 4,562.14
Next 010 pay $0495.21 taxes/person total of ..$ 4,952.31
................................................................... $14,450.87
Those (in 2003 dollars/tax returns) who had AGI income less than $29,019 paid 03.46% all personal taxes yet they make up 50% of all taxpayers. They are getting a free ride and they know it. The good thing is that most of the folks here are simply not going to vote in large numbers.
Those (in 2003 dollars/tax returns) who had AGI income less than $94,891, but more than $29,019 paid 30.70% of all taxes and they make up 40% of all taxpayers. While they don't like there own tax rates, they know it only gets worse as you climb the economic latter and most of these folks are interested in climbing that latter. Plus they know they are paying over 11 times as much in taxes as those in the bottom half.
Those (in 2003 dollars/tax returns) who had AGI income less than $295,495, but more than $94,891 paid 31.57% of all taxes, but only make up 9% of all taxpayers. They don't like being called rich even though they know they are doing extremely well, but they also know how hard they worked to get there. Plus they know they are paying over 50 times what the lower half pays.
Those (in 2003 dollars/tax returns) who had AGI income greater than $295,495 paid 34.27% of all taxes even though they are only 1% of all taxpayers. They pay more than 495 (!) times higher than bottom half. They know they are carrying the load.
We always hear about disportionate income distribution and then about progressive taxation to make it 'right' ...
One of these days we will talk about distorted taxation levels - very few really belive some should be paying 495 times the tax rate of 50% of the income earners.
Heck most don't really believe the 91%-99% income earners should be paying 50 times the tax rate of the bottom 50%.
The problem is (as I see it) most taxpayers are not aware of this data in sufficient detail to get them to increase their opposition to tax hikes in general and especially those on the top 1%, 10%, 50% who they know pay more than the lion's share of the bills.
Cheers!
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com |
The way to sell that politically might be to "agree" with the Democrat you are debating that the tax rate on the "rich" should be "increased" - to a multiple of the median taxpayer's rate which sounds high but is actually lower than the present value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
• New EIB Numbers Breakdown...