NationStates Jolt Archive

why do so many blue collar and other poorer and working people vote for the republicans even though its against, at least their economic interests. haven't their living standards been quite considerably decreased in both the reagan and bush years. what do they see in the neo liberal economics in even in a purely selfish way, whats good for them. the system is directed to the rich, trickle down is not very effective and their living standards are going to keep sliding, particularly under the republicans. is it the social conservatism that they see in the republicans that they like or is it the marketing of either party or even the personality of the leaders they put forward. weird phenomenon and i'd just like to know what people on ns think.

Isn't that the question most would ask? Somehow a whole nation was duped into believing that "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" was actually a good idea.....
I guess a lot of people like to hold on to the idea that they might win the lottery and become "the rich"

actually, my living standards went up during Regan, leveled during Bush, went down during Clinton and leveled with a slight upward incline during G. W. Bush.

I think we'll see Bush outsource govmt works such as public assistance to faith groups.

actually, my living standards went up during Regan, leveled during Bush, went down during Clinton and leveled with a slight upward incline during G. W. Bush.

Ah what? They went up and started going down with Reagan. Down with Poppy Bush, way up with Clinton, down with the Shrub and probably will go down more with the Shrub.

Guess it depends the industry.

actually, my living standards went up during Regan, leveled during Bush, went down during Clinton and leveled with a slight upward incline during G. W. Bush.
Just a guess but you are either a defence contractor or work in the emigration dept?

Nope, tech support duing Clinton and Bush Jr. Student during Regan and Bush sr.

why do so many blue collar and other poorer and working people vote for the republicans even though its against, at least their economic interests. haven't their living standards been quite considerably decreased in both the reagan and bush years. what do they see in the neo liberal economics in even in a purely selfish way, whats good for them. the system is directed to the rich, trickle down is not very effective and their living standards are going to keep sliding, particularly under the republicans. is it the social conservatism that they see in the republicans that they like or is it the marketing of either party or even the personality of the leaders they put forward. weird phenomenon and i'd just like to know what people on ns think.

I suspect that I can sum up, if not all of it, then sizable chunk in one word. Jesus.

They don't vote their wallet, they vote their faith. Really kind of a shame, seeing as the number of people who'd vote to worsen other lives rather than just being selfish is rising at a distressing (read: any) rate. And even ignoring the president thing, the elections are more than a bit of a testament to that.

Nope, tech support duing Clinton and Bush Jr. Student during Regan and Bush sr.

DOD during Regan and Bush.
Systems Administrator and WAN Engineer under Clinton
WAN Engineer under the shrub.

if it helps, I was tech support for the DoD during Clinton... for a short time...

We're poor as shit and my mom votes Republican. But she votes with her Bible, not with her head. I've never known her to even know what the person she's voting for's moral platforms are...she just equates Republican with Christian and goes from there.

Ok I was joking about the emigration Dept.
But seriously look at you economy after 4 years of Bush.
Many Trillions of dollars in Dept.
Trillion dollar budget deficit and growing
Trade deficit of 100 million dollars A MINUTE.
A dollar that is droppng on the world exchange faster than a downtown hookers underwear.
Maybe you find everything wonderful right now, but where is your future?

Ok I was joking about the emigration Dept.
But seriously look at you economy after 4 years of Bush.
Many Trillions of dollars in Dept.
Trillion dollar budget deficit and growing
Trade deficit of 100 million dollars A MINUTE.
A dollar that is droppng on the world exchange faster than a downtown hookers underwear.
Maybe you find everything wonderful right now, but where is your future?True but look at the events during Bush... 9/11 alone took Billions of dollars, the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq... more money... in Bush sr. you had the Gulf War... not a nice time for economic growth... what did Clinton have... Yemen, and other embassy bombings. and his tryst with Monica...which he tried to get the taxpayers to pay for.. anyway, as stated above maybe I was just lucky... but there were alot of things I had to struggle for under any president. it just seemed easier with Bush than with Clinton.

Ok I was joking about the emigration Dept.
But seriously look at you economy after 4 years of Bush.
Many Trillions of dollars in Dept.
Trillion dollar budget deficit and growing
Trade deficit of 100 million dollars A MINUTE.
A dollar that is droppng on the world exchange faster than a downtown hookers underwear.
Maybe you find everything wonderful right now, but where is your future?
Good post, one of many here.
Welcome, Hobbslandia (if no one else has already).
Good luck to you.

True but look at the events during Bush... 9/11 alone took Billions of dollars, the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq... more money... in Bush sr. you had the Gulf War... not a nice time for economic growth... what did Clinton have... Yemen, and other embassy bombings. and his tryst with Monica...which he tried to get the taxpayers to pay for.. anyway, as stated above maybe I was just lucky... but there were alot of things I had to struggle for under any president. it just seemed easier with Bush than with Clinton.
Clarify:
WHO tried to get the taxpayers to pay for WHAT regarding Monica?
Certainly you understand what that was about, but for CLARIFICATION ... Do you mean the taxpayers paying for the cigars?
An impeachable offense? Seriously?

Good post, one of many here.
Welcome, Hobbslandia (if no one else has already).
Good luck to you.
Thanks for the welcome, appeciated. (you are 1st)
I just call it the way I see it.

Nope, tech support duing Clinton and Bush Jr. Student during Regan and Bush sr.Sorry kid, you are hereby disqualified from having any opinion on the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Having your parents buy you a new video game does not equate to an increase in one's standard of living.

I however, have been punching a timeclock since Carter was president. Whenever someone says something nostalgic about the eighties I'd like to slap them.

I can't understand the guys I work with who made tons of money in their 401K's during the Clinton years only to loose much of it under Shrub and still they voted for him again. Let's not play games, there's very little difference in the way either candidate would have run the country, the president only has so much power and you have to sell your soul to even have a run at the job. It comes down to playing on moralistic and divisive issues to win support. It's stupid to vote against your own pocketbook in favor of someone else's, but people have been doing it for years because slick advertising convinces them they're voting for something else.

I have only one piece of advice for anyone who takes it upon themselves to enter a polling place, no matter your political orientation. FOLLOW THE MONEY, whenever you see that slick ad telling you the dangers of voting for some inititive or candidate ask yourself who's paying for that message and what's in it for them, because there's always something in it for them. These guys aren't laying out millions because they want the best for the you or the country, they want what's best for themselves. Your job is to see through the bullshit and decide if what's good for them is also good for you.

COMMIES! BASTARDS! I HATE EM! ARRGGGGGGGHH! NIYA!!!!!!! COMMUNIST BASTARDS! AHH!

"Darling! Supper-time!"

Coming dear!

Sorry kid, you are hereby disqualified from having any opinion on the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Having your parents buy you a new video game does not equate to an increase in one's standard of living.
If my parents DID buy me a New Video Game... I had to Earn it. Granted I wasn't punching clocks but I was working even before I was Legally able to work. So don't Judge me. I never questioned YOUR work history or WORK ethics.

If my parents DID buy me a New Video Game... I had to Earn it. Granted I wasn't punching clocks but I was working even before I was Legally able to work. So don't Judge me. I never questioned YOUR work history or WORK ethics.Yeah and I was working the farm when Johnson and Nixon were president, but I don't play that it makes me an expert on their administrations. Face it you were to busy with puberty to actually know what was going on during the Reagan/Bush years.

Yeah and I was working the farm when Johnson and Nixon were president, but I don't play that it makes me an expert on their administrations. Face it you were to busy with puberty to actually know what was going on during the Reagan/Bush years.I never said it did make me an expert. I just gave my experience... I never said it was true for ALL Americans like the first post said. then again... you lived through Nixon... and Carter... so while I will admit your breath of experience is greater... I would also point out, it also doesn't make you an expert also. Truce?

I never said it did make me an expert. I just gave my experience... I never said it was true for ALL Americans like the first post said. then again... you lived through Nixon... and Carter... so while I will admit your breath of experience is greater... I would also point out, it also doesn't make you an expert also. Truce?Truce? That would imply there was some sort of war or conflict. Frankly it's not that important to me. I'm no expert, yep you got that right, never represented myself as one. I'm just here to give my advice (take it or leave it) and call people on their bullshit. It's what I do. If I was more tactfull at it I wouldn't have to call myself Crusty Stuff, but I believe in truth in advertising.

DAMN COMMIES! :mp5:

Truce? That would imply there was some sort of war or conflict. Frankly it's not that important to me. I'm no expert, yep you got that right, never represented myself as one. I'm just here to give my advice (take it or leave it) and call people on their bullshit. It's what I do. If I was more tactfull at it I wouldn't have to call myself Crusty Stuff, but I believe in truth in advertising. :D :D :D But if there were Truth in Advertising... think of the unemployment rate... all those lawyers... marketing people... POLITICIANS... all out of work. :D :D :D

http://www.antiaverage.com/images/forum/retard.jpg

I apologize for the Digression... back on track. Follow the money... Some want to take it from the corps. in a way it's true. give the money to the people and the economy will be stimulated... people will have enought to buy food, clothes and other neccessites. but then, Corps need money also. they need to fund projects and research and pay employees. without the money to pay for them, they need to get it... so they raise their prices. and the consumer ends up paying more, including the low/lower middle class cits.

On the flipside... give the money to the corporations... they in turn can fund projects find new/better medicine, products, raises for employees and create jobs. that gives the working person a better income, and helps lower unemployment. prices can be cut to draw customers away from compeitors. however, the poor/lower middle class who were depending on the money from the government (via services) are then screwed.

Simple view I know but this is my opinion... and I am no expert ;) , but a balance must be struck. and that is the hard part. for any Administration.

Actually, the rich get richer and the poor get richer too. It's just that the rich get richer than the poor.

Actually, the rich get richer and the poor get richer too. It's just that the rich get richer than the poor.Actually the poor get unemployed or face salary cuts (including inflation). The middle class borrow more and more money. Life has never been so good for the rich.

Life has never been so good for the rich.
Never? really? how intresting

Dmeocrats have failed those middle and lower class people. Great job with the war on poverty and all. 40 years of control of both houses and nothing got done. Sure they talk nice, but in the end it's all bs. Their policies just keep people living as slaves for them with their tax money.

Ok I was joking about the emigration Dept.
But seriously look at you economy after 4 years of Bush.
Many Trillions of dollars in Dept.
Trillion dollar budget deficit and growing
Trade deficit of 100 million dollars A MINUTE.
A dollar that is droppng on the world exchange faster than a downtown hookers underwear.
Maybe you find everything wonderful right now, but where is your future?
Not here

Dmeocrats have failed those middle and lower class people. Great job with the war on poverty and all. 40 years of control of both houses and nothing got done. Sure they talk nice, but in the end it's all bs. Their policies just keep people living as slaves for them with their tax money.You probably have a point, but remember that when Democrats were running the country from the 1930s to the 1980s, they turned the USA into the most powerful country in the world. Failures. :rolleyes:

You probably have a point, but remember that when Democrats were running the country from the 1930s to the 1980s, they turned the USA into the most powerful country in the world. Failures. :rolleyes:


Lol do we have to have the argument that democrats at that time were more fiscally conservative then the republicans :-P

A representative of The Empire of Presidency says, "ya, I f@#ked her."

You probably have a point, but remember that when Democrats were running the country from the 1930s to the 1980s, they turned the USA into the most powerful country in the world. Failures. :rolleyes:

But the democrates of today are not those of the year 20th centery

Lol do we have to have the argument that democrats at that time were more fiscally conservative then the republicans :-P
And they still are. :)

But the democrates of today are not those of the year 20th centery
Yeah, back then they actually were liberals. :sniper:

Ok I was joking about the emigration Dept.
But seriously look at you economy after 4 years of Bush.
Many Trillions of dollars in Dept.
Trillion dollar budget deficit and growing
Trade deficit of 100 million dollars A MINUTE.
A dollar that is droppng on the world exchange faster than a downtown hookers underwear.
Maybe you find everything wonderful right now, but where is your future?

Has anyone had a basic college level economics class...?
If so you must have forgotten that the economic indicators that everyone ponits to to say the economy is good or bad lag behind 4 year or so or even more. So all the deficit is due to the actions of Clinton. All the credit Clinton got was actually for the work that Sr. and Regan did before him.

The greats folly about the Presidency is that if things look good you get the credit if you did it or not (likely not) and if things look bad you are blamed regardless if you did it or not.

the reagen years i had to join the military to get a paycheck, was sent overseas during bush sr's term, became a union carpenter during clinton's term, struggled at that during bush jr's first, i am currently unemployed as he starts his second term......voted demo the whole time go figure

the reagen years i had to join the military to get a paycheck, was sent overseas during bush sr's term, became a union carpenter during clinton's term, struggled at that during bush jr's first, i am currently unemployed as he starts his second term......voted demo the whole time go figure

Please don't tell me that you are blaming the president for your lack of employement

The only peron who could complain that bush forced him out of his job is husan and I don't really think anyone is ready to rush to that man's defence

Heh this thread reminds me of dialogue in the graphic novel "From Hell", which is a fictious conversation between Abberline and Leeds

Abberline: Oh do come on Mr. Lees! Really! They've had nothing but war, poverty...

Lees: Despite which they have survived! Surely that confirms rather than contradicts what Mr. marx has said: Socialism is inevitable. Why I myself am testament to its increasing influence. I am undoubtedly a product of the middle classes yet none espouse socialism more volubly than I.

Abberline: My point precisely, Mr. Lees. My point precisely.

Lees: What do you mean?

Abberline: I mean most socialists are middle class. your late friend Mr. Hardie for one. Mr. Ramsay, leader-of-his-majesty's-bloomin-opposition MacDonald for another. Now meself, I come from a working family. We vote Tory, always have done. The working class don't want a revolution Mr. Lees; they just want more money.


In case anyone cares the author (Alan Moore) is an anarchist. :)

If my parents DID buy me a New Video Game... I had to Earn it. Granted I wasn't punching clocks but I was working even before I was Legally able to work. So don't Judge me. I never questioned YOUR work history or WORK ethics.

But he made a valid statement. Saying your income was better under two presidents when you are working part time and living at home means nothing to the people supporting themselves or a family.

The only peron who could complain that bush forced him out of his job is husan and I don't really think anyone is ready to rush to that man's defence

Ok I will bite. Do explain who Sadaam force a carpenter out of work.

Yeah, back then they actually were liberals. :sniper:

Ahmmm you might want to re-read a few things. The change didn't start happening till Truman.

*sighs* The Liberals tax us dry and you people cry about the Republicans lowering the standard of living...

*sighs* The Liberals tax us dry and you people cry about the Republicans lowering the standard of living...

Wow were do you live?

A tax rate of 100%?????

Wowwwww


:rolleyes:

all i was saying is it sure is funny how the reagan years started a trend for myself and alot of other american workers.... or don't any of you remember
reaganomics? the fact is that under a democratic pres and congress people worked alot more thatn under a republican pres and congress, unless your one of the ones in the upper income brackets, myself being in the 20,000 to 50,000 income level it was and is harder to make a decent living under bush.
and i realize that it's up to myself to better myself and i accept that but it sure is alot harder under a repulican pres and congress

Maybe they are voting for the actual issues instead of the person or side. People should not just vote based on which party they belong to; what if a strong democratic agreed with most of Bush's points but voted for Kerry simply because Kerry is democratic? That says that they don't actually care about ideals, but more about the person they like more. Elections are meant to appoint the right person for the job, not a certain appearance. Who cares if a person is only republic or democratic: they should look at the issues, not the person.

she just equates Republican with Christian and goes from there.
I am the only one who thinks this is really crazy?

ahhh and yet another ugly head rears itself up..whatever happened to separation of church and state? moral values....isn't that just another way to say religion? just a thought...........

all i was saying is it sure is funny how the reagan years started a trend for myself and alot of other american workers.... or don't any of you remember
reaganomics? the fact is that under a democratic pres and congress people worked alot more thatn under a republican pres and congress, unless your one of the ones in the upper income brackets, myself being in the 20,000 to 50,000 income level it was and is harder to make a decent living under bush.
and i realize that it's up to myself to better myself and i accept that but it sure is alot harder under a repulican pres and congress

Reagon was against the belief that its your money you deserve more of it. He could care less about your want of tax money.
He believed tax cuts were used to stimulate the economy beause not because of people buying stuff but entrenpreners(spelled wrong I bet) would invest money.

So Bush talked against the very core of Reagonamics.
Granted Reagon was a supply side believer. Bush is a starve the beaster. (the beast being government) Starving through deficents.

hmmm bush against spending? how does he justify the billions yes billions he's spending? the war on terror? you gotta be kidding me, bin laden? if they were really looking for him i do believe they'd have found him by now......anyway this is off topic, bush's admin. is one of the worst to hit the US in alot of years, did you know he's cut the unemployment benefits for all workers in the US, no i don't have a stat. for that but just try and extend your claim and see what happens..... bush is pro big corporation, just look at who's vp..