[grand_master_d]

I'm wondering what you guys think. Recently, the President came to visit my southern Minnesota town. Since then, I have heard way too many Democrats complaining about the obvious class division between the two sides. They would claim that all of the people attending the rally showed up in their fancy SUVs while all the protestors were the poor people who had to ride their bikes around town. I think this is nothing but bull**** to the extreme. My Republican family is definitely lower middle class. I also find it strange that some of these people complaining are making 2x to 3x what my family makes. Is there class division, in your opinions?

(And yes, the Bush rally was awesome. I was a foot from the President and got some awesome pictures.)

[JerryLove]

While the republicans focus on benifits to the wealthy; the base includes heavily the politically conservative religious right. I would say you'll find more upper middle class republicans and more poverty-class democrats; but the lower-middle seems to find appeal in the ideology; even if a lack of pratical benifit.

in short, it's all over the place.

[smhatahy]

my family is upper-middle and vote republican.. me i'm poor and dont have a party to vote for

[anathema]

im middle class and vote socialist..

where do i fit in your scheme?

*anathema*

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

I'm wondering what you guys think. Recently, the President came to visit my southern Minnesota town. Since then, I have heard way too many Democrats complaining about the obvious class division between the two sides. They would claim that all of the people attending the rally showed up in their fancy SUVs while all the protestors were the poor people who had to ride their bikes around town. I think this is nothing but bull**** to the extreme. My Republican family is definitely lower middle class. I also find it strange that some of these people complaining are making 2x to 3x what my family makes. Is there class division, in your opinions?

(And yes, the Bush rally was awesome. I was a foot from the President and got some awesome pictures.)

I seriously doubt that the two parties thought about appealing to certain classes from the beginning. Rather, the people made their own classes. Both parties have their own ideals, philosophy, views(planks), etc., and people classed themselves by lining up with these values. In other words, the Republican smaller government(read: less interference), lower taxes, etc. appeals to the upper class, so they tend to vote Republican. The Democratic larger government, government social programs, higher taxes(at least for the rich), etc. appeals to the lower class, so they tend to vote Democrat. Both classes vote in the best interest of themselves, and it's neither party's fault that there is a class division: it's just basic human nature.

IMO both parties err: the Republicans cater to the richest 5%; the Democrats cater to the poorest 5%. That leaves 90% of America - the working, low-to-middle income, suburban families with 2.2 kids, a dog, and a mortgage - disenfranchised, IMO.

It seems both parties cashed in on their class base. The Republicans noticed that they had the support of the rich upper class, so they tweaked their platform to cater to their interests, all for the $$$ they have to offer. The GOP gave tax breaks to businesses(who financially support them), which translates to looser regulations regarding manufacturing standards, etc.

The Democrats noticed their support of the "disadvantaged" lower class, and catered to their interests. They oppose anything that keeps the Littleman down, while offering government-funded programs to help.

Both parties are guilty of catering to their special classes. Neither should be complaining.

Although it was interesting to hear about the Democrats complaining about their base, the lower class, but the Republicans seem content. Why? Like I said, I think the Dems are jealous and want the upper class for themselves, all in the name of Almighty Dollar: the god of America. It seems to me the Dems don't really care for their lower class. Otherwise, why would they be complaining about them?

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

While the republicans focus on benifits to the wealthy...

You hear stuff like this all the time, and it kind of makes me laugh. So many people consider lowering the upper classes taxes from 40+% to 30+% to be favoring, forgetting that the lower class pays well under 30%. How is making taxes *slightly* more level the same as favoring them. The Rich are still left in an unfair situation.

(For the record, I am not even close to rich, nor are any of my family members. It just doesn't seem fair to me to punish people because they are more fortunate than you. And yes, I consider paying out a high percentage of your income because "you can afford too" unfair)

Go flat tax go!

Jake

[JerryLove]

You hear stuff like this all the time, and it kind of makes me laugh. So many people consider lowering the upper classes taxes from 40+% to 30+% to be favoring, forgetting that the lower class pays well under 30%. How is making taxes *slightly* more level the same as favoring them. The Rich are still left in an unfair situation.

Feel free to interprete it as a relative statement. The GOP economic mantras are more oriented towards the wealthy than the Democratic economic mantras.

But you should check your numbers. No one pays a federal income tax over 35% of their income.http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...109877,00.html

(For the record, I am not even close to rich, nor are any of my family members. It just doesn't seem fair to me to punish people because they are more fortunate than you. And yes, I consider paying out a high percentage of your income because "you can afford too" unfair)

So do you think it would be unfair for your mother to be expected to continue working as much as your father, and contribute as much housework if she were ill, injured, or oterwise infirm?

As someone much closer to the top than the bottom (read 28% bracket) I would oppose tremendously doing even 26% flat-tax (which it would at least take). Something about pulling a quarter of the income from someone who already needs 3 room-mates to afford a cheap rent that just rubs me wrong.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As someone much closer to the top than the bottom (read 28% bracket) I would oppose tremendously doing even 26% flat-tax (which it would at least take). Something about pulling a quarter of the income from someone who already needs 3 room-mates to afford a cheap rent that just rubs me wrong.

but taking that quarter who can afford to pay 3 people to live with him is right?

[JerryLove]

but taking that quarter who can afford to pay 3 people to live with him is right?

The short answer for what I presume you ment is "yes, to me it is". I notice you never answered the analogy.

Heck, if I'm gonna try your position (that everyone should carry an equal burden), then it's wrong to charge a percentage... we should charge a flat amount. After all, why should Bill Gates have to pay for more road than I do?

Let's see, US population around 300,000,000; Federal income around 1,500,000,000,000; that's about 5,000 per person, including children. I wonder what we should do to those who do not make that much, debter's prison?

I suppose, if nothing else, in the end it is fair (at least to voting-age adults) because they got their representation in the passing of the law.