Poor conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain.

[Link]

-Many of the poor who vote Republican are from rural, small-town areas. They are thus, less (or less obviously) dependent on government than a high-density urban area.

-Republicans do a far better job than Democrats at appealing to rural areas and small towns. It's not merely cultural conservatism or hot-button "wedge issues": a lot of rural people genuinely resent the wealthier urban areas' influence and power, and urban usually means Democratic in voting habits. Reagan was from small-town rural America, and was himself a former Democrat; he understood and could communicate with small-town "middle America."

The last time I was in the South during election season I went to rural Texas and there were several Democrats running for local office unopposed.  There is a very strong rural Democratic tradition.  In the south it has to do with the Republican Lincoln freeing the slaves.  The growing Republican influence was due to LBJ (a Democrat) signing into law civil rights legislation.  It's as simply as that.  You take racism out of the equation and you have a very differnt picture.

So rural white people are just a bunch of stupid racists who don't know what's good for them?  Because that's what you imply.

The average person in general is pretty ignorant.  This thread was asking a specific question about poor conservative voters.  And yes I think the average person doesn't know what's good for them.  That's why they majority of them are overweight or obese.

And yes I believe poor southern rural whites tend to be more racist than educated northeastern people of all races.  Am I wrong?  Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[lowtech redneck]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

[Torie]

Anvi, it was a study, albeit done about 15 years ago. It seems that the quality of the teacher makes a lot more difference than class size. Heck Catholic schools, which did and do, a good job, had classes of about 60 kids. Sure kids with special problems need special handling. Anyway, it is an empirical issue, of how much bang you get for the buck from reducing class size, versus having better teachers. The thing is, is that even with a class of 15, you can't really give each kid all that much individual attention.  Maybe computers and technology will help to mitigate some of this - the issue of specializing the educational experience for each kid based on what they know, and don't know, and their varying aptitudes.

I will try to get some more recent data for this little empirical issue.

Anyway, the key with disadvantaged kids is to intervene early. They have a truncated vocabulary, and are behind the eight ball on their first day of school, and never get out of the trap. That requires an entirely separate set of policies. And it is going to be expensive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh look, it's this lame talking point again.

It's not a talking point.  It's reality.  None of the major things Republicans are discussing are theoretical.  It's all been tried before with varying degress of success (by which I mean failure).  There are numerous countries with weak central governments and low taxes on the rich that would love for US millionares to relocate.  Ever wonder why you don't see an exodus?  Think about it.

It is a talking point. It insinuates that the call for less gov't is a complete absolute desire for none at all. Hyperbolistic exaggeration of one's opponents is one of the most common of talking points.

Some people call it "hyperbolistic exaggeration."  I call it "reading the newspaper."

This is the same Bachmann who says we should declare war on Iran as a response to the recent attempt to kill the ambassador in Washington, DC. This would inevitably require a military, would it not? Is the military not gov't?

Beyond that, I found Bachmann's answer on taxes very interesting the morning on ABC. She wants to raise taxes on the both 50%. These would require a gov't to collect them, would it not.

Even your point about "eliminating all taxes" doesn't mean elminating all gov't. Perhaps she wants to use the Chinese credit card. With her intelligence and flakery, I wouldn't be surprised if such was the case.

Congratulations, I didn't think exaggerating Bachmann was possible, but you have won the gold medal.

[All Along The Watchtower]

-Many of the poor who vote Republican are from rural, small-town areas. They are thus, less (or less obviously) dependent on government than a high-density urban area.

-Republicans do a far better job than Democrats at appealing to rural areas and small towns. It's not merely cultural conservatism or hot-button "wedge issues": a lot of rural people genuinely resent the wealthier urban areas' influence and power, and urban usually means Democratic in voting habits. Reagan was from small-town rural America, and was himself a former Democrat; he understood and could communicate with small-town "middle America."

The last time I was in the South during election season I went to rural Texas and there were several Democrats running for local office unopposed.  There is a very strong rural Democratic tradition.  In the south it has to do with the Republican Lincoln freeing the slaves.  The growing Republican influence was due to LBJ (a Democrat) signing into law civil rights legislation.  It's as simply as that.  You take racism out of the equation and you have a very differnt picture.

So rural white people are just a bunch of stupid racists who don't know what's good for them?  Because that's what you imply.

The average person in general is pretty ignorant.  This thread was asking a specific question about poor conservative voters.  And yes I think the average person doesn't know what's good for them.  That's why they majority of them are overweight or obese.

And yes I believe poor southern rural whites tend to be more racist than educated northeastern people of all races.  Am I wrong?  Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are plenty of educated people in my area-a 70% Obama area of well-educated liberals- who are racist. I've heard it. I've seen it.  But it's more of a subtle, dismissive, condescending racism than a "goddamn n-ggers" racism.

Do you not understand that more education is correlated with higher income? That's what creates resentment, among poor rural whites, among poor people in general.

Btw, many of the wealthiest counties in America were Obama counties. You're being so dismissive of poor people voting Republican, yet you praise wealthier (I'm sorry, more "educated")  people who vote Democratic. Generally, people don't like it when you call them stupid bigots who are voting the "wrong" way-as if the Democrats and the Republicans, nationally, really were that different!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

The article is fairly accurate in it's depictions of the events of the growth of the GOP in the South. Most of the "racist" rural whites in the deep south didn't become reliably Republican voters till the 1990's. Thus it is logical to state that it was the three G's, God, Guns and Gays that swung them to the GOP, not race. The other exception is the rural whites of East TN and Western NC/VA, which have been Republican since the 1860's.These groups opposed the elitism of the Segregationist Democrats and and thus it is perfectly consistent to oppose the elitism of the the far left. The rich middle class people who have been GOP since the days of Ike are logical choices to be Republican.

The southern strategy was really nothing special or even new. Hoover had one in 1928. Both parties ignored race because it would be like voting on an abortion measure during high unemployment. "Those damn Republicans are too busy trying to help the negro rather than help get us northern working class folk jobs", instead of "Them damn Republicans are focusing on abortion instead of jobs". Unlike pro-lifers, blacks didn't have an political influence until 1948 when they provided Truman with his victory margin in OH, ILL and CA. 

[Link]

And yes I believe poor southern rural whites tend to be more racist than educated northeastern people of all races.  Am I wrong?  Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are plenty of educated people in my area-a 70% Obama area of well-educated liberals- who are racist. I've heard it. I've seen it.  But it's more of a subtle, dismissive, condescending racism than a "goddamn n-ggers" racism.

tend to be≠100%

[Link]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

The article you posted from the Weekly Standard?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't thinks so.

I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.  I never use them as a basis for any of my arguments for left leaning or Democratic ideas.  There is a difference between entertainment and news.  A lot of Faux Noise and Rush Limbaugh addicts don't get the distinction.  Everyone is allowed their guilty pleasures.  But eventually you have to come back to planet earth.

[krazen1211]

So it seems the two answers we have are
1. A view that forcing a specific flavor of Christianity upon everybody is more important than their own economic well-being.
2. A view that if they just keeping on doing what they've been doing, one day they will magically be rich.
And there you have it. Why a poor chooses to stay poor.

Seriously?  Have you even read the thread?

The Democrats don't really actually contribute to their economic well being. They just talk about it.

Poverty has skyrocketed under barack obama.

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't. Social Security and Medicare spending skyrocketed under George W. Bush.

[Link]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

[krazen1211]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

Standard budgetary gimmickry. Medicare spending of course continues to rise.

[lowtech redneck]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

The article you posted from the Weekly Standard?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't thinks so.

I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.  I never use them as a basis for any of my arguments for left leaning or Democratic ideas.  There is a difference between entertainment and news.  A lot of Faux Noise and Rush Limbaugh addicts don't get the distinction.  Everyone is allowed their guilty pleasures.  But eventually you have to come back to planet earth.

Whatever; here's a New York Times article (not that I consider that any better or less partisan of a source) that supports the information contained in the Weekly Standard article: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

[Sbane]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

Standard budgetary gimmickry. Medicare spending of course continues to rise.

Would that be on a per capita basis on how many people are using it. Keep in mind Medicare usage will increase over the next 10-15 years. Even "real" cuts will lead to more growth in spending. And there is no way around that. I think cuts in social security might be the better route to go.

[Torie]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

Standard budgetary gimmickry. Medicare spending of course continues to rise.

Would that be on a per capita basis on how many people are using it. Keep in mind Medicare usage will increase over the next 10-15 years. Even "real" cuts will lead to more growth in spending. And there is no way around that. I think cuts in social security might be the better route to go.

In 20 years, the number of folks over 65 will jump from 37 million to 87 million I think. Instead of 1.5% of the population being over 85 (long term care and senile dementia/Alzheimers city), it will be 5% of the population. Combine that with the cost of advancing medical technology, and what you are looking at is a fiscal abyss that makes the Grand Canyon look like Laguna Canyon in comparison. 

[Sbane]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

Standard budgetary gimmickry. Medicare spending of course continues to rise.

Would that be on a per capita basis on how many people are using it. Keep in mind Medicare usage will increase over the next 10-15 years. Even "real" cuts will lead to more growth in spending. And there is no way around that. I think cuts in social security might be the better route to go.

In 20 years, the number of folks over 65 will jump from 37 million to 87 million I think. Instead of 1.5% of the population being over 85 (long term care and senile dementia/Alzheimers city), it will be 5% of the population. Combine that with the cost of advancing medical technology, and what you are looking at is a fiscal abyss that makes the Grand Canyon look like Laguna Canyon in comparison. 

More generics! I should get into managed care, shouldn't I?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...we Republicans believe that hard work and contentment, not government assistance, is the key to overcoming the cards that life sometime deals us.

[I am jmfcst and I approve of this message.]

[Link]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...

Well you may enjoy whipping your own back but that does not disprove the mountains of evidence that indicate investing in health care, adequate housing, and eduction for the poor benefits society as a whole.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...

Well you may enjoy whipping your own back but that does not disprove the mountains of evidence that indicate investing in health care, adequate housing, and eduction for the poor benefits society as a whole.

my mother understood government assistance could end up as a way of life...so we got by.  We ate at home probably 99% of the time (McDonald's was a huge treat), and our vacations amounted to driving to OK and KS to visit relatives.  We didn't throw birthday parties, we simply had cake and a couple of presents.  We worked and saved as a family.  And now we are all out of the ghetto and my mother is retired with several hundred thousand dollars in life savings.

if that is whipping your own back, then more people should try it

[Link]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...

Well you may enjoy whipping your own back but that does not disprove the mountains of evidence that indicate investing in health care, adequate housing, and eduction for the poor benefits society as a whole.

my mother understood government assistance could end up as a way of life...so we got by.

Your mother sounds like a great gal.  Too bad she didn't have any self control or teach it to her offspring.

Are you familiar with the term alcoholics?  They are people that can't handle alcohol.  For them it becomes "a way of life."  Most people can consume alcohol responsibly.  Do you think we should ban all alcohol because a minority of people can't handle it?

Obviously you've heard of McDonalds.  The vast majority of people can't handle it.  For them "it becomes a way of life."  That's why the majority of American's are over weight or obese lard @$$es (seriously how many people have hypothyroidism).  Do you think we should have a government ban on McDonalds?

A lot of people at various points in their lives (even before they are 65) receive some type of government assistance.  The majority of them do not end up as strung out crack addicts blowing guys behind a dumpster for PEZ.

No one in my immediate family was ever on welfare or food stamps.  But once I grew up and left my suburban bubble I started encountering people in my professional life who had.  I was surprised at first.  These people were engineers, doctors, teachers, etc.  They were on public assistance for a finite amount of time (sometimes years) and were now making money and paying back into the stem.  They represent the extreme success stories.  But there is a lot of territory between them and your Reaganite myth of every welfare recipient being a "welfare queen" from the south side of Chicago.

[Link]

We ate at home probably 99% of the time (McDonald's was a huge treat), and our vacations amounted to driving to OK and KS to visit relatives.  We didn't throw birthday parties, we simply had cake and a couple of presents.

Good for you.  Both my parents at various points in their lives had six figure jobs.  My home life was the exactly as you just described, besides the trips.  Every few years my parents would take me overseas so I wouldn't grow up to be a completely ignorant American.  But besides that it was road trips around our home state.  It's called living within your means.  You don't have a monopoly on the concept and again that does not disprove the fact that a social welfare system can be beneficial to society as a whole.

[Wonkish1]

Too bad she didn't have any self control or teach it to her offspring.

You d*ck!!

[Link]

And now we are all out of the ghetto and my mother is retired with several hundred thousand dollars in life savings.

I saved the best for last.  This is truly one of the most hilarious statements I have read in a long time... and yes I do read Michelle Bachmann's comedy material.

Would you mind telling me how many people in this country retire with "several hundred thousand dollars in life savings."  So you want to come up with a national plan that will assume no one will need government assistance and that everyone retires with "several hundred thousand dollars in life savings."  Why not just plug the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus into your equation?

I have more education than probably 95+% of Americans.  I would not build an economic model that assumed everyone else would be capable of my academic achievements.  Achievements mind you that I think are very modest compared to those of my coworkers and supervisors.  You have to be realistic.  Your mother's achievements particularly with what she was given are commendable but unfortunately not easily reproducable.

If you can find for me a country where people refuse to accept government welfare and the majority of the people "retired with several hundred thousand dollars in life savings" then I will be willing to look at your economic plan and start trying to figure out how to implement it here in America.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Would you mind telling me how many people in this country retire with "several hundred thousand dollars in life savings." 

she put into practice the word "No" and worked and spent less than she earned and she always taught us "it's not how much you make, it's how much you save"...which is why I drove a base model '97 Corolla from May 1997 til June 2011...and is why I spent several nights in the Logan airport to keep from spending $45 bucks on a cab ride.

saving 300k over the 30 years covering 1970-2000 is NOT that big of a deal, it only required saving $350/month earning 5%...or $200/month earning 7.5%...or $120/month earning 10%

but, nowadays, you could easily do the same with a matching 401k even with an interest rate of ZERO:  $417/month (plus matching $417/month) for 30 years = $300k...and putting money into your 401k is taxfree money.  In fact matching 401k's are such a good deal, you should NEVER risk your matching 401k in the stock market.

[Torie]

jmfcst, your use of nominal dollars rather than real ones leads to the wrong conclusion, particularly the bit about never putting 401K money in the stock market. How much will $300,000 buy in 40 years? Indeed, a case can be made that young folks with good earnings prospects should buy stocks on leverage, since most of their "net worth" as it were is in the form of human capital, not tangible assets.

The issue is the expected equity premium return over a risk free investment. At the moment, that premium is pretty generous, around 5% or so, which is higher than it has been since the early 1990's. In 2000 at the height of the dot.com bubble, it was negative.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, your use of nominal dollars rather than real ones leads to the wrong conclusion, particularly the bit about never putting 401K money in the stock market. How much will $300,000 buy in 40 years?

I simply gave of an example of earning 0 percent return...if you stick it in bonds you'll most likely cover inflation.

---

Indeed, a case can be made that young folks with good earnings prospects should buy stocks on leverage, since most of their "net worth" as it were is in the form of human capital, not tangible assets.

i would never advise anyone to borrow money to buy stock

in a matching taxfree 401k, there is no reason to risk it in the stock market.  you're already getting a HUGE tax break and 100% instant return.  after you max out your 401k, then you can use any extra money you save to invest in stocks.