A question of perception

[KarlvB]

Note: I am not trolling, but looking for an honest answer from US forum members.

I've noticed (when I was in the US on business and from reading some posts here on the forum) that a lot of people hold the view that a Republican administration will improve their economic position, whereas a Democratic administration will not.

However, looking at the most recent data it appears that exactly the opposite is true.

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...t-fired-2009-8

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18567271/U...tribution-2007

In fact, during the last Republican administration's time in office the average annual income was down by 1%, the bottom 99% of the population saw a decline in the real growth of their annual incomes from 2.7% to 1.3%, and the percentage of growth captured by the top 1% of the population increased from 45% to 65%.

So it appears that while the top 1% saw their fortunes improve, the majority of the population did not see any tangible benefits.

My question is therefore - Why do people believe they would be benefited by a Republican administration vs. a Democrat administration? (A bit of a moot point at the moment since the election is over but still something that I've never fully understood)

Is it down to personal circumstances?

Also, I am very aware that real incomes will see a decline in the next couple of years due to the financial crisis - but frankly I don't believe any administration (Republican or Democrat) could stop this.

[Veganpunk]

Well I'm American and voted against Republican every time. I don't consider myself a Democrat, but since we are a two party system they are the only ones that stand a chance of winning against them. I'm just some crazy animal loving, tree hugging, wants church out of state, liberal punk rocker. The only thing I agree with Repubs on is giving money to welfare. If you keep handing out free money the usually equals or exceeds the amount one would get working a min. wage job, then people will not be motivated to get said job. There should be a cut off and a mandatory drug test.

[VBSnus]

It's a question of message and perception, as you've said:

Democrat View - If I spend more money now, we'll save money later because of x, y, and z
Conservative View - No, don't give me that "make it up in volume" stuff. We need to CUT spending.

Conservative View - We should support the corporations and top earners, because their success will trickle down to the people.
Democrat View - No, they'll just turn off the faucet and the people below won't get a thing, like AIG, banks, etc etc.

Why am I saying "conservative view" and not "republican view"? Because I personally feel the republican party is in a state of disarray. The "free market" message used to be the standard of the party and now, who knows where they're going. I hope this gets resolved soon; we need two solid parties for balance, and God knows we're not going to get a third party any time soon.

There's also the moral issue, as we're seeing with healthcare. The definition of rights vs. privileges, and defining what the country should spend money on. For instance, many democrats felt that money for the Iraq war was unfair because they didn't want their taxes going to it. Many republicans feel that they don't want their money going to a universal health care option. However, the former is constitutional law, the latter may or may not be, depending on interpretation. It's a sticky situation.

I personally would like to see some common sense enter the mix. In the past, it seemed that Republicans used to be ALL about common sense, and the democrats were ALL about social programs. The line in the sand has been severely muddied, however, as a new generation of voters has taken to a more centrist approach. Both parties are scrambling to catch up.

Lastly, there's the old fears come back from the cold war. We're faced with the supposed specters of SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, even though the current health care option is neither, it's still trumpeted as such. Those two words are about the most evil words in the American English dialect, hailing back from the McCarthy days. But it leads to confusion, for instance, this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce..._b_252326.html has people telling congress to keep their "government hands" off their Medicare. Without realizing Medicare is a government run program! I particularly like this explanation: http://i30.tinypic.com/warpn4.png

I think Republicans need to go back to their glory days of innovation and sound spending, and stop being for big business. Democrats can be the party of ideals, and possibly costly goals...and the two will go together again like Yin and Yang.

[Veganpunk]

Well said VB.

[sundog]

Nothing "supposed" about the threat of socialism or its ilk. A free republic is ALWAYS is danger of being overthrown, whether from without or from within. I don't mind people being overly suspicious about any politician. Better to be safe than sorry.

It greatly concerns me when I see the Federal government taking more and more power that rightly belongs with the states and/or the people. Both parties are guilty; that's why I'm an independent.

Watch the "health care reform" legislation closely. Read the final bills yourself. Methinks this is just a huge power grab disguised as reform. Sure, they'll include a little reform to try to make it legitimate, but in the end, it's just a pure power grab. Plus, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution (remember the Constitution? Yeah, THAT document!) that gives the government the power to control health care, or even get involved in such matters.

"Rights" do not come from "needs". A right cannot require the taking of the fruits of another's labor. That's theft.

[sagedil]

Please list what established democracies have been overthrown in the past 100 years. Not talking about banana republics but true long established democracies.

[VBSnus]

sundog, I agree with you on the power thing. I also believe power should be in the hands of the states and ultimately the people. I don't know that I consider socialism a "threat", but I can see how it could be seen that way. But I also don't believe corporate power = free republic, or power to the people.

The huge issue here is that healthcare has been shaped by lobbyists and turned upside down throughout the years, turning into a structure where everyone must have insurance in order to ensure a long happy life (life, pursuit of happiness). Additionally, for-profit companies get to decide who takes place in these programs, and who gets cut at any given time. Lastly, control of the whole thing has been put into the hands of corporations, not the people, so in order to be guaranteed good coverage you MUST work for a corporation who provides insurance.

That scares the hell out of me way worse than a government system. At least we can vote gov't folks out of office. What we can't do is bargain with health insurance companies who cut people mid-disease. We can't sue them, because they've lobbied for laws against that. If a health insurance company denies someone due to a pre-existing condition, they're out of luck and will not get healthcare (this happened to me, I am uninsured).

How can we represent a free market when you must have a corporate job to be guaranteed insurance? What about taking risks, becoming your own boss, innovating, going after the American dream? Are only perfectly healthy people qualified to do that?

It's a tough road for sure, and very sticky. The current bill in the healthcare reform debacle is definitely a power grab, sure, just like the Patriot Act was a power grab. The Chief Executives of this country have been trying to make the job more powerful with every new President. However, there doesn't have to be anything in the constitution specifically related to healthcare for congress to make laws on it. That IS in the constitution, and it's why we have so many federal bureaus today (for better or for worse).

The 16th Amendment completely shattered your statement at the end about "a right cannot require the taking of the fruits of another's labor". Once the income tax amendment passed, we lost all rights to our income and how it is spent on the nation as a whole. It's a sad, sorry thing. Personally, I hate income tax and would love to see a flat tax or fairtax be enabled. I'm self employed, and for the privilege of being so, I get to pay a higher percentage in taxes than anyone I know, even a few people who make double what I do.

I don't know what to make of it all. The problems compound and compound. I think this was the thought process of those making the current bill:

1) Remove state boundaries on health insurance companies. Who's gonna regulate it?
2) Require insurance companies to accept people regardless of age, weight, sex, pre-existing conditions. But what about people who sign up only when sick? Better require insurance so this doesn't happen!
3) What about people who can't afford it? Better set up subsidies
4) How will we keep it all in check? Make a marketplace.
5) What if the insurance companies won't play ball? Oh well, we'll need to make a government plan I guess.
6) How much is it gonna cost? Lots.

I'm a bit jaded. The way I see it, the gov't already takes 40% of everything I earn and I have no healthcare, pay huge prices for services and such, and no say in anything...why NOT be socialist? I realize that all people do not feel this way!

[Snusdog]

Remember that old adage- If you want to know when, what, or how? Follow the money. If you want to know why, where, or who? Follow the money.

We are deluded if we think this is a two party country. It is a one party country and that party is corporate America- just follow the money.

The financial melt down of the past year has exposed the fiction that the Government regulates Wall street. Wall Street regulates the Treasury.

And these corporations are not American corporations. Their allegiance and interest are global. So it’s not like we can trust that they won’t sink the boat since we are all in it together. They have a completely different boat than the American public. Take for example the good ol folks at Red Man tobacco. Nothing says America like Red Man..... right? The Red Man Corporation would never have any divided interest or competing obligations from those of the American Public, would they? I mean yes they have lobbyist in Washington who are there to shape our laws in their company's interest but it’s not like they are an international company or anything. I mean they're not Swedish Match or anything.....are they?

Corporations have had legislation (international minded legislation) put in place that utterly insulates them from obligation to the public. Take VBS’ insurance scenario. Another example is that your cell phone or cable company can change the terms of your service or your contract at any point and yet you are still bound (bound to honor terms that you never agreed to) That is insane. You cannot do business on a playing field and with terms like that for very long.

To describe socialism in antiquated terms of government is naïve. We live under a corporate wielded government and thus have a hybrid form of socialism- corporate generated socialism.

Have you notice that we live in a nation that talks more than anyone at any other time in history about individual rights, fairness, political correctness, and etc.... And yet individuality is lost to the generic uniformity of a mass produced market mind set. Have you notice how utterly impersonal our interaction with that public market has become.

Sincerely,

Posting agent 14375

Your response to this post may be recorded or monitored for security purposes.

You are not privy to these recordings

You will never speak to the same rep twice. There will be no recollection of any past discussion except that in your own mind

I will need to transfer you to our portioned snus department

Our portioned snus department does not receive incoming calls. Please press 1 for further options.