Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives

[Indy Texas]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/gop-civil-war-now-class-war/58922/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The implication that rich people are smarter than poor people......

[Indy Texas]

I just find it ironic that "the folks" are being blamed for the GOP performance this year when it was the money of people like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess that kept joke candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the running for so long and it was the Kochs' money that got pissed away on badly done TV commercials instead of actually, you know, getting actual people to talk to actual people and tell them to vote for your candidate.

Granted, I sympathize philosophically with cerebral conservatives and mainstream Republicans, but it's hard not to feel sorry for the movement conservative rank-and-file who basically get chunks of red meat thrown at them by the Mitt Romneys of the world and then when the rest of us aren't persuaded, he turns around and blames them for his inability to get elected.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Does the person who wrote this article actually believe this or is he just being clever?

[minionofmidas]

Seems to be a case of Poor, Somewhat Dumb Conservatives vs Rich, Far Dumber Conservatives.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I just find it ironic that "the folks" are being blamed for the GOP performance this year when it was the money of people like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess that kept joke candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the running for so long and it was the Kochs' money that got pissed away on badly done TV commercials instead of actually, you know, getting actual people to talk to actual people and tell them to vote for your candidate.

Granted, I sympathize philosophically with cerebral conservatives and mainstream Republicans, but it's hard not to feel sorry for the movement conservative rank-and-file who basically get chunks of red meat thrown at them by the Mitt Romneys of the world and then when the rest of us aren't persuaded, he turns around and blames them for his inability to get elected.

The Beltway Conservatives certainly deserve their share of blame too, but the next Republican presidential candidate who actually gets elected is going to need to have a Sister Souljah moment with the Trump/Beck/Bachmann wing of the party.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We, poor dumb conservatives were smart enough not to support Romney in the primary. What's your excuse for backing a loser?

If the 'smart' people consider me dim, then I'd prefer to be dim in their eyes. As Reagan once said, "you believe so much that just isn't so."

[Wisconsin+17]

"Sister Souljah moment with the Trump/Beck/Bachmann wing of the party."

Last I checked, Clinton won. The moderates are welcome to try going all Clinton on us. Clinton went to the middle with two parties on his right, Romney wanted to go to the middle without the split.

[Benj]

The implication that rich people are smarter than poor people......

The point, I think, isn't that poor people are dumber than rich people, but that poor people don't know how to be rich (how to preserve wealth, how to behave with a lot of money). We see this a lot with lottery winners; how many declare bankruptcy within a few years? It's not a matter of being stupid. It's a matter of not growing up privileged and never being told how to manage their finances, which is not something most people, rich or poor, know intuitively. People who grew up in the upper middle class or higher have that advantage. People who grew up poor don't. Those few who actually make it from poverty to extreme wealth are mostly pretty smart to begin with and can figure it out. We even see the poor decisions of those who made it to money without brains (think not just lottery winners, but celebrities like Britney Spears or any random pro sports player).

Obviously not the only thing that's going on, but does explain why Trump is so popular with low-income segments of the Republican base.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your analysis would be more believable without the D-NJ. FWIW.

Speaking as one of those low-income voters - why do I support conservativism? It's because I can't afford to waste money on the latest fashionable cause de jour, and I certainly don't like liberals like you taking my money and using it to fund the things that you want.

Perhaps I would be a liberal - if I worked in the government or for a union. Then I'd be making lots more money then I do now, and I could afford to be a liberal.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The implication that rich people are smarter than poor people......

The point, I think, isn't that poor people are dumber than rich people, but that poor people don't know how to be rich (how to preserve wealth, how to behave with a lot of money). We see this a lot with lottery winners; how many declare bankruptcy within a few years? It's not a matter of being stupid. It's a matter of not growing up privileged and never being told how to manage their finances, which is not something most people, rich or poor, know intuitively. People who grew up in the upper middle class or higher have that advantage. People who grew up poor don't. Those few who actually make it from poverty to extreme wealth are mostly pretty smart to begin with and can figure it out. We even see the poor decisions of those who made it to money without brains (think not just lottery winners, but celebrities like Britney Spears or any random pro sports player).

Obviously not the only thing that's going on, but does explain why Trump is so popular with low-income segments of the Republican base.

If this is the case, how do you explain the many trust funders who don't know how to handle life in general, much less personal finances?

Also, Trump's father was a wealthy man, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your analysis would be more believable without the D-NJ. FWIW.

Speaking as one of those low-income voters - why do I support conservativism? It's because I can't afford to waste money on the latest fashionable cause de jour, and I certainly don't like liberals like you taking my money and using it to fund the things that you want.

Perhaps I would be a liberal - if I worked in the government or for a union. Then I'd be making lots more money then I do now, and I could afford to be a liberal.

I don't like conservatives taking our money and using it to fund wars for profit. That goes both ways.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why we are spending 2/3rds of a trillion dollars just on overhead for welfare, and only 1/3rd of a trillion on the actual recipients.

Would you donate to a local charity that spent 2/3rds of your money on administration?

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why we are spending 2/3rds of a trillion dollars just on overhead for welfare, and only 1/3rd of a trillion on the actual recipients.

Would you donate to a local charity that spent 2/3rds of your money on administration?

It must be nice to have your own facts.

    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/

[Wisconsin+17]

Apparently progressive reality has issues with reading comprehension. I said welfare. Neither of those are welfare.

[Benj]

The implication that rich people are smarter than poor people......

The point, I think, isn't that poor people are dumber than rich people, but that poor people don't know how to be rich (how to preserve wealth, how to behave with a lot of money). We see this a lot with lottery winners; how many declare bankruptcy within a few years? It's not a matter of being stupid. It's a matter of not growing up privileged and never being told how to manage their finances, which is not something most people, rich or poor, know intuitively. People who grew up in the upper middle class or higher have that advantage. People who grew up poor don't. Those few who actually make it from poverty to extreme wealth are mostly pretty smart to begin with and can figure it out. We even see the poor decisions of those who made it to money without brains (think not just lottery winners, but celebrities like Britney Spears or any random pro sports player).

Obviously not the only thing that's going on, but does explain why Trump is so popular with low-income segments of the Republican base.

If this is the case, how do you explain the many trust funders who don't know how to handle life in general, much less personal finances?

Also, Trump's father was a wealthy man, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

I didn't say all rich people know how to be rich, just that they had the opportunity to learn. Some of them are too dumb/dense to take advantage of that opportunity.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Apparently progressive reality has issues with reading comprehension. I said welfare. Neither of those are welfare.

OK, well "welfare" doesn't make up anywhere near a majority of the federal budget, unlike defense and "entitlements." . What is your point?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question - would you support a charity that was spending two thirds of what they take in as overhead?

[TJ in Oregon]

Sigh...The GOP needs to figure it's main problem isn't even political. It's the way we expect our politicians to carry themselves. Our zeal for entertainment has gotten so bad it's difficult to even talk to a lot of conservatives anymore. Getting angry doesn't fix America and yelling louder and louder doesn't mean what you have to say any more convincing than if you said it calmly. The left has discovered the joy of politics as entertainment, but so often it's just in making fun of us.

I remember when I was talking to a bunch of Republicans about redistricting Ohio and the idea of combining Jean Schmidt's and Steve Chabot's districts and forcing them into a primary, the conversation somehow, some way ended up getting twisted into about half the people believing that Jean Schmidt was the "true conservative" and Steve Chabot the "moderate" just on the bases that Schmidt was a worse candidate. It took quite a while for people to figure out that ideology wasn't Schmidt's problem so much as how she carried herself at times.

We've done that too much as a national party and as a movement. You don't have to be a moderate to be pragmatic and you don't have to sell out your beliefs to get things done. We need better candidates more than we need ideologically pure ones. That being said, I'll admit there are limits to this. I don't want to turn the GOP into the Democrat-lite party and I don't want to turn it into a socially liberal party. But conservative needs to mean more than the opposite of whatever the liberals want. It needs to be a grand alternate vision for the country.

Now, part of this too is that the Democrats, those on here included, want to try and make the Republican Party looks stupid and ignorant. The idea is to paint us as freakish weirdos and lead the band of internet leftist lemmings wherever makes the GOP look bad to go regardless of whether its true or not. Republicans need to recognize this still, as an honest man in politics will do about as well as a Mormon in Beer Olympics, but try and defuse the attacks instead of playing into them. We have be prepared to be harassed but not react poorly to it.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question - would you support a charity that was spending two thirds of what they take in as overhead?

No. That's why I don't support the huge international charities.

But of course welfare is not charity. Welfare is the Government doing the job it derives its justification from.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough - I don't see that in the constitution.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We, poor dumb conservatives were smart enough not to support Romney in the primary. What's your excuse for backing a loser?

If the 'smart' people consider me dim, then I'd prefer to be dim in their eyes. As Reagan once said, "you believe so much that just isn't so."

If anyone other than Romney had been nominated, Obama would have won by an even wider margin.  Gingrich or Perry, for example would have both lost in a 40+ state landslide.

[LastVoter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough - I don't see that in the constitution.

Still worshiping 200 year old piece of paper eh? But oddly enough the constitution has general welfare clause.

[7,052,770]

Why do Republicans worship James Madison's musings from 200 years ago?  You'd think a bunch of super-Christians wouldn't treat a mortal man like he were Jesus himself...

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why we are spending 2/3rds of a trillion dollars just on overhead for welfare, and only 1/3rd of a trillion on the actual recipients.

Would you donate to a local charity that spent 2/3rds of your money on administration?

2/3 huh?

Link? That sure would be an incredible stat considering the overhead figures for soc sec and medicare (which, in fact, is social welfare by most reasonable definitions).