Democrats and Hispanics love affair -- is it based on income?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Democrats have been the party of immigrants since the days of yore, but for a brief change in things around 1896 through the 1920's. Al Smith and then the Great Depression set things right though.

[hopper]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Economic Security-I might agree with you since the hard right took over the party after 2010 especially after the re-election of Obama in 2012.

How do the Republicans threaten access to education? Its the Dem Base of Unions that threatens progress in the education system not the Republicans.

Healthcare-no way ObamaCare can be fixed unless the Dems get out of their idealogy of not wanting to fix the flaws of ObamaCare. Republicans have to stop wanting to repeal Obamacare as well since its never going to be fully repealed. Both parties are wrong on healthcare.

That's cynical or extreme to think that whites think as long as they have their guns or freedom that they don't need any healthcare. I am white and I don't think that way. Maybe its because I live in the Northeast I don't think that way.

[hopper]

Also, people seem to think the surge of Asian immigrants (more coming in than Hispanics now) are the Japanese/Chinese/Korean ethnicities. In actuality, they're mostly Muslim immigrants from Asia... so I don't think the GOP will be doing that good of a job of attracting them either.

Most of the Asians live on the West Coast and Northeast which is the Dems base so its not surprising that they vote like they do for the Presidency the last 3-4 Presidential cycles.

 

[hopper]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

That's true I work I was working Security in 2004 and one of the cleaners who was Hispanic he was like you like Bush W. he is for the rich. I'm like what are you talking about? At that time I didn't understand the liberal bias of the media because I didn't follow politics that often. Now had it been now I might have agreed with the cleaner in 2004 because the hard-right really didn't exist and nobody heard of the tea party.

On another note NBC does own Univision(a Hispanic network.)

[tpfkaw]

Democrats have been the party of immigrants since the days of yore, but for a brief change in things around 1896 through the 1920's. Al Smith and then the Great Depression set things right though.

The Democrats always won the vast majority of immigrants, and even when they *may* not have (1920 and 1924), they voted far more Democratic than the rest of the nation.

[Redban]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57582373/do-the-democrats-have-a-lock-on-the-hispanic-vote/





The problem is that most Hispanics fall in the <50K category...

[Blue3]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

That's true I work I was working Security in 2004 and one of the cleaners who was Hispanic he was like you like Bush W. he is for the rich. I'm like what are you talking about? At that time I didn't understand the liberal bias of the media because I didn't follow politics that often. Now had it been now I might have agreed with the cleaner in 2004 because the hard-right really didn't exist and nobody heard of the tea party.

On another note NBC does own Univision(a Hispanic network.)

Are you saying that Republican's aren't for the rich, and the Democrats aren't for the poor and middle class?

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

That's true I work I was working Security in 2004 and one of the cleaners who was Hispanic he was like you like Bush W. he is for the rich. I'm like what are you talking about? At that time I didn't understand the liberal bias of the media because I didn't follow politics that often. Now had it been now I might have agreed with the cleaner in 2004 because the hard-right really didn't exist and nobody heard of the tea party.

On another note NBC does own Univision(a Hispanic network.)

Are you saying that Republican's aren't for the rich, and the Democrats aren't for the poor and middle class?

Why would anyone think the Democrats support the poor and middle class? Simply because they say they do? We shouldn't believe everything we hear. For 80 years, the Democrats have claimed to focus helping the poor and it hasn't gotten any better. After all these years, it's an obvious political tool to get elected to public office.

[Blue3]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Minimum Wage, labor protections and regulations, etc. Just to name a few.

[Sbane]

Bangladash and India, some from other Southeast Asian countries.

(There are more Muslims in India than in any other country in the world)

Also I'm talking about the Asians immigrating to America now and in recent years, not the makeup of all those already here (who the Chinese would be the majority).

India is still 80% Hindu though. I see no evidence that Indians immigrating to the US are disproportionately Muslim. And is there a lot of immigration from Bangladesh currently? I highly doubt it. The most immigration currently is from India and China. The Chinese are business people who are buying houses and getting a green card. They may be less likely to ever actually settle in the US and become citizens. Anyways, one of the reasons the GOP does poorly with Indians is religion, but not because they are Muslim. Even Hindus are not going to trust a Christian party, especially since they come from a country where the main dividing lines are religion, not race or ethnicity.

[Linus Van Pelt]

According to the most recent Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, which is an official Homeland Security document, the countries of birth for new legal permanent residents in 2012 are as follows. (All values are %).

Mexico 14.2
China, People's Republic 7.9
India 6.4
Philippines 5.6
Dominican Republic 4.0
Cuba 3.2
Vietnam 2.7
Haiti 2.2
Colombia 2.0
Korea, South 2.0
Jamaica 2.0
Iraq 2.0
Burma 1.7
El Salvador 1.6
Pakistan 1.4
Bangladesh 1.4
Ethiopia 1.4
Nigeria 1.3
Canada 1.3
Iran 1.3
all other countries 34.3

New naturalizations in 2012, meanwhile, (i.e. citizens, who can actually vote, unlike PR's), are as follows (again, in %):

Mexico 13.5
Philippines 5.9
India 5.7
Dominican Republic 4.4
China, People's Republic 4.2
Cuba 4.1
Colombia 3.2
Vietnam 3.1
Haiti 2.5
El Salvador 2.2
Jamaica 2.1
Korea, South 1.8
Peru 1.6
Pakistan 1.5
Brazil 1.3
Iran 1.3
Ukraine 1.2
Nigeria 1.2
Somalia 1.2
United Kingdom 1.2
all other countries 36.8

So, both Chinese and Indians (and East Asians and South Asians more generally) continue to represent large percentages of new Asian immigrants. It does appear, though, that the naturalization/immigration ratio is higher among Indians than among Chinese. I don't know whether this is just because rates of immigration are changing from 5-10 years ago, or instead more Chinese people get green cards without eventually becoming citizens.

[eric82oslo]

So, both Chinese and Indians (and East Asians and South Asians more generally) continue to represent large percentages of new Asian immigrants. It does appear, though, that the naturalization/immigration ratio is higher among Indians than among Chinese. I don't know whether this is just because rates of immigration are changing from 5-10 years ago, or instead more Chinese people get green cards without eventually becoming citizens.

Yeah. The other day I read a New York Times article about this. There are restrictions for how many permanent visas or citizenships different nationalities may receive each year. For some countries like the Phillipines, Mexico, China and India, the number of applications are much, much higher than the legal visas available. Thus residents of certain nationalities have had to wait for 20 years or in some cases even more in order to obtain citizenship. Now we're talking legal immigrants of course. The longest waiting time is expected for residents of Phillipine nationality. As of 2013, they've had to wait on average 23.5 years in order to change their green card into full citizenship. Mexicans stand at almost 17 years, while Chinese and Indians - for some reason lumped together - had an average waiting period of 12 years. Sorry, this number of years does not apply to every resident, only to those being siblings of a current US citizen. For spouses and children, the wait is less than 2 years, even for these worst hit countries.

This is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/legal-immigrants-seek-reward-for-years-of-following-the-rules.html?pagewanted=all

Here is the graphic illustrating the long wait: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/15/us/legal-immigrants-waiting-in-line.html?ref=us

[Linus Van Pelt]

So, both Chinese and Indians (and East Asians and South Asians more generally) continue to represent large percentages of new Asian immigrants. It does appear, though, that the naturalization/immigration ratio is higher among Indians than among Chinese. I don't know whether this is just because rates of immigration are changing from 5-10 years ago, or instead more Chinese people get green cards without eventually becoming citizens.

Yeah. The other day I read a New York Times article about this. There are restrictions for how many permanent visas or citizenships different nationalities may receive each year. For some countries like the Phillipines, Mexico, China and India, the number of applications are much, much higher than the legal visas available. Thus residents of certain nationalities have had to wait for 20 years or in some cases even more in order to obtain citizenship. Now we're talking legal immigrants of course. The longest waiting time is expected for residents of Phillipine nationality. As of 2013, they've had to wait on average 23.5 years in order to change their green card into full citizenship. Mexicans stand at almost 17 years, while Chinese and Indians - for some reason lumped together - had an average waiting period of 12 years. Sorry, this number of years does not apply to every resident, only to those being siblings of a current US citizen. For spouses and children, the wait is less than 2 years, even for these worst hit countries.

This is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/legal-immigrants-seek-reward-for-years-of-following-the-rules.html?pagewanted=all

Here is the graphic illustrating the long wait: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/15/us/legal-immigrants-waiting-in-line.html?ref=us

No, these are separate issues. There are statutory limits on the number of permanent residencies (green cards) that can be granted by country and category in each year. Thus, for certain countries and categories, there are very long wait times to move from legal temporal status to permanent residency, and the wait times vary significantly by nationality. This is what the article is about. But there are no such annual limits on moving from permanent residency to citizenship. Thus, if people are not becoming citizens when they become eligible after five years with a green card, it is by their own choice (aside from cases where the application is rejected).

[cheesepizza]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

[barfbag]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

[MalaspinaGold]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

I'm not quite sure that students are being FORCED to go to failing schools. In my district, parents can apply for an intradistrict transfer to go to a different school if they wish. The situation is  especially fluid at the elementary school level, since my family considered two or three different selementaries in the district.  Could you elaborate which districts suffer from this?

I'm not quite sure why it has to be charter schools per se that should be built to lower the student:teacher ratio. Why can't more public schools be created? Charter schools just drain more and more money from public schools, causing current cutbacks in education to be intensified.

[barfbag]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Minimum Wage, labor protections and regulations, etc. Just to name a few.

Yes it's called using the poor to get elected to office. Vote for me and I'll give you money. If they really cared about the poor they'd be building homeless shelters and working for charities.

[barfbag]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

I'm not quite sure that students are being FORCED to go to failing schools. In my district, parents can apply for an intradistrict transfer to go to a different school if they wish. The situation is  especially fluid at the elementary school level, since my family considered two or three different selementaries in the district.  Could you elaborate which districts suffer from this?

I'm not quite sure why it has to be charter schools per se that should be built to lower the student:teacher ratio. Why can't more public schools be created? Charter schools just drain more and more money from public schools, causing current cutbacks in education to be intensified.

This is not a bad response to what I said. In most places, kids have to go to the school district their home falls into unless the parents pay for a private school. Some states do it differently, but not most of them. School vouchers help parents who can't afford to send their kids to other schools due to costs of transportation. Education itself should be solely on the states with the exception of segregation and extremities comparable. It's good your parents had a choice. I'd like to hear how education works in your state. More public and charter schools can be built, but we're all flying the same flag which is to educate children. At least we all should be flying this flag. Every time it's suggested that failing schools shouldn't get funds we hear cries about the teachers' union. If we allow school choice and competition where parents can choose, then no longer funding as much for failing schools wouldn't be as much of a burden because most parents wouldn't want to send their kids there anyways. It's similar to a bad company going out of business.

[ag]

No. It is based on the Republicans consciously positioning themselves as The White Anglo party. Asians vote pretty much the same as Hispanics. If you choose to run as a party of one racial/ethnic/linguistic group, do not be surprised that you get few votes from other groups.

That's the stereotype of the GOP painted by the media.

Mostly by Fox News, I guess.

What about Fox News?

It is a horrible turn-off for all minorities.

[ag]

A few weeks ago I was in DC. My daughter wanted to see the Capitol, so we went. The Senate was in session. A Republican senator (I will leave him unnamed) was going on and on about immigration reform. Trust me: just broadcasting him live with Spanish subtitles on Univision (given the southern accent employed, Spanish subtitles would have even been useful for many Anglos)  would be enough to convince almost anyone bothering to listen never to vote for a party of that SOB.  Let us not search for subtle reasons - there is nothing subtle about that. If you spend much of the time trying to convince your white constituents that you dislike Hispanics, don't be surprised if Hispanics also listen.

Hispanics, on average, are no poorer now than they were 20 or 10 years ago - but they increasingly vote Dem. They, actually, understand English. They are much smarter than you think. And they hear you.

You want to change this impression? Well, start by stopping to play on nativist prejudices of your current electorate. That, of course, might cost votes among those many, who only vote Republican because they think that party defends their "superiority". Tough choice, I guess.

[MalaspinaGold]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

I'm not quite sure that students are being FORCED to go to failing schools. In my district, parents can apply for an intradistrict transfer to go to a different school if they wish. The situation is  especially fluid at the elementary school level, since my family considered two or three different selementaries in the district.  Could you elaborate which districts suffer from this?

I'm not quite sure why it has to be charter schools per se that should be built to lower the student:teacher ratio. Why can't more public schools be created? Charter schools just drain more and more money from public schools, causing current cutbacks in education to be intensified.

This is not a bad response to what I said. In most places, kids have to go to the school district their home falls into unless the parents pay for a private school. Some states do it differently, but not most of them. School vouchers help parents who can't afford to send their kids to other schools due to costs of transportation. Education itself should be solely on the states with the exception of segregation and extremities comparable. It's good your parents had a choice. I'd like to hear how education works in your state. More public and charter schools can be built, but we're all flying the same flag which is to educate children. At least we all should be flying this flag. Every time it's suggested that failing schools shouldn't get funds we hear cries about the teachers' union. If we allow school choice and competition where parents can choose, then no longer funding as much for failing schools wouldn't be as much of a burden because most parents wouldn't want to send their kids there anyways. It's similar to a bad company going out of business.

Well, I go to school in California, so you can look its education policy up.

It's harder to get an interdistrict transfer, but it is possible to get, and plenty of people I know at my public school come from neighboring cities, even counties (admittedly, we are a magnet school, but the same is true for other, non-magnet schools).

However, vouchers are different from what you said, frankly. I have no qualms about allowing kids to go to any school within the district, or even out of district, or else I would not be able to get to the school that I am at currently. However, school vouchers essentially means taking money out of the public school system and giving it to parents to choose between public, private, or parochial schools. On the surface, this would be a good fix, but in the long run, it would mean crippling the public school system. With less money going toward public schools, teachers must be laid off, classes cut, up-to-date materials not coming because the district simply would not have the ability to pay for it. This then leads to a vicious cycle where more and more bright kids skipping the public school system for private schools because the districts continue to lower quality by slashing spending.

By contrast, I support additional funding for public schools so they can hire teachers, and get updated technology, which most public schools desperately need. This can make them more competitive with more affluent private schools. This is one reason why my school became a success story.

Also, the problem with closing a failing school is that the students who used to go to that school will need to go somewhere, they're not all going to drop out. The district will eventually cram them into neighboring schools, placing further demands on infrastructure, increasing class sizes, and lowering the quality of the education there.

The main problem I see with your business analogy is that a school is much harder to create than a business; whenever a business closes down, there is often another one that replaces it, or an existing business expands to take up demand. By contrast, if a failing school closes, would the school district really be interested in wasting millions to put up another school in the same neighborhood?

[ag]

To make my point even blunter. I don't think there is Hispanic love affair with the Dem party. There is a hate affair between the Hispanics and the Republican party. Which, in a two-party system, of course, means that Dems become the only option for the Hispanics.

[barfbag]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

I'm not quite sure that students are being FORCED to go to failing schools. In my district, parents can apply for an intradistrict transfer to go to a different school if they wish. The situation is  especially fluid at the elementary school level, since my family considered two or three different selementaries in the district.  Could you elaborate which districts suffer from this?

I'm not quite sure why it has to be charter schools per se that should be built to lower the student:teacher ratio. Why can't more public schools be created? Charter schools just drain more and more money from public schools, causing current cutbacks in education to be intensified.

This is not a bad response to what I said. In most places, kids have to go to the school district their home falls into unless the parents pay for a private school. Some states do it differently, but not most of them. School vouchers help parents who can't afford to send their kids to other schools due to costs of transportation. Education itself should be solely on the states with the exception of segregation and extremities comparable. It's good your parents had a choice. I'd like to hear how education works in your state. More public and charter schools can be built, but we're all flying the same flag which is to educate children. At least we all should be flying this flag. Every time it's suggested that failing schools shouldn't get funds we hear cries about the teachers' union. If we allow school choice and competition where parents can choose, then no longer funding as much for failing schools wouldn't be as much of a burden because most parents wouldn't want to send their kids there anyways. It's similar to a bad company going out of business.

Well, I go to school in California, so you can look its education policy up.

It's harder to get an interdistrict transfer, but it is possible to get, and plenty of people I know at my public school come from neighboring cities, even counties (admittedly, we are a magnet school, but the same is true for other, non-magnet schools).

However, vouchers are different from what you said, frankly. I have no qualms about allowing kids to go to any school within the district, or even out of district, or else I would not be able to get to the school that I am at currently. However, school vouchers essentially means taking money out of the public school system and giving it to parents to choose between public, private, or parochial schools. On the surface, this would be a good fix, but in the long run, it would mean crippling the public school system. With less money going toward public schools, teachers must be laid off, classes cut, up-to-date materials not coming because the district simply would not have the ability to pay for it. This then leads to a vicious cycle where more and more bright kids skipping the public school system for private schools because the districts continue to lower quality by slashing spending.

By contrast, I support additional funding for public schools so they can hire teachers, and get updated technology, which most public schools desperately need. This can make them more competitive with more affluent private schools. This is one reason why my school became a success story.

Also, the problem with closing a failing school is that the students who used to go to that school will need to go somewhere, they're not all going to drop out. The district will eventually cram them into neighboring schools, placing further demands on infrastructure, increasing class sizes, and lowering the quality of the education there.

The main problem I see with your business analogy is that a school is much harder to create than a business; whenever a business closes down, there is often another one that replaces it, or an existing business expands to take up demand. By contrast, if a failing school closes, would the school district really be interested in wasting millions to put up another school in the same neighborhood?

If by crippling the public education system, we mean providing parents with the right to choose where their kids go to school and receiving a better education then I'm all for it. For all the money we spend on public education, the very least we can do is provide families with a choice in the matter. After all, the parents should be making decisions for their children, not politicians in Washington D.C. or legislators. I would limit school vouchers to being valid for only public schools especially if it meant Democrats getting on board to pass the bill. If by schools closing we mean students who used to go to failing schools will now be attending better schools. Going to better schools is a good thing. Another thing I'd like to see is more schools being built so that we can cut down on the student to teacher ratio. Smaller classes is also a good thing. My basic proposals are the following.


We're off topic from Hispanics and Democrats so I'm going to ask if we can continue this discussion on my back to school thread under political debate. I enjoy our conversation. I'm sorry I forget you're name and I believe you are new? Welcome to atlas!

[Indy Texas]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Minimum Wage, labor protections and regulations, etc. Just to name a few.

Yes it's called using the poor to get elected to office. Vote for me and I'll give you money. If they really cared about the poor they'd be building homeless shelters and working for charities.

So are agricultural subsidies about using agribusiness to get elected to office?

Stop with the homeless shelter and charity BS. When was the last time you worked at a homeless shelter, Saint Barfbag?

And the only reason conservatives technically donate more to charity is because most of that goes to their church, where it pays for upkeep and staff. It's not really charity so much as membership dues for a private club. The only time the non-denominational megachurch near me ever does any help for poor people, they're sending clothes to Africa. I'd be shocked if they were to do something for the poor people in this city, other than convince them not to abort the baby they can't afford to have and then provide them no help whatsoever in actually raising said baby.

[barfbag]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Minimum Wage, labor protections and regulations, etc. Just to name a few.

Yes it's called using the poor to get elected to office. Vote for me and I'll give you money. If they really cared about the poor they'd be building homeless shelters and working for charities.

So are agricultural subsidies about using agribusiness to get elected to office?

Stop with the homeless shelter and charity BS. When was the last time you worked at a homeless shelter, Saint Barfbag?

And the only reason conservatives technically donate more to charity is because most of that goes to their church, where it pays for upkeep and staff. It's not really charity so much as membership dues for a private club. The only time the non-denominational megachurch near me ever does any help for poor people, they're sending clothes to Africa. I'd be shocked if they were to do something for the poor people in this city, other than convince them not to abort the baby they can't afford to have and then provide them no help whatsoever in actually raising said baby.

Conservatives pay plenty to charity so they can write it off on their taxes. I'm not sure how you got onto the topics of churches, but I'm not discussing it on this thread and would be delighted to elsewhere. Are you lumping churches and conservatives together? What do abortions have to do with Hispanics and Democrats? Again, I'd be happy to discuss abortion on another thread. If you insist though in your next response I'll discuss abortions and churches. I'm just very confused how they came up at all. I was stating the obvious about politicians. Do you think the Democrats are just a bunch of saints who are out to do the right thing and help the poor regardless of where it gets them? Should we call them by St. Obama and St. Hillary? The likely proven scenario is like all parties around the world, they use others misfortunes to expand their own political careers. It's called taking advantage of the poor. Democrats can criticize my charity work all they want when they're party is the party of saints. Then we can call them St. Obama and St. Hillary.