- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I've heard it both ways. I've heard that the poor overwhelmingly support Democrats and that the poor overwhelmingly support Republicans. Does anyone actually have any data to support the notion of which party the poor are more likely to support?
I did a few years ago and those making under 30K strongly supported the dems. I know HS dropouts (who tend to be the poorest of any educationally stratified cohort) have been the dems most reliable bloc of voters of any group ranked by education
I submit that it depends on the aspirations of the individual. Almost all of us are "poor" at the time we first enter the work force; those who are ambitious and plan to become wealthy will support conservatives, those who have no such ambition or hope will support liberals.
I submit that it depends on the aspirations of the individual. Almost all of us are "poor" at the time we first enter the work force; those who are ambitious and plan to become wealthy will support conservatives, those who have no such ambition or hope will support liberals.
I submit that it depends on the aspirations of the individual. Almost all of us are "poor" at the time we first enter the work force; those who are ambitious and plan to become wealthy will support conservatives, those who have no such ambition or hope will support liberals.
I submit that you're wrong.
I'm ambitious, hard-working, self-sufficient, and quite liberal.
Poor people have been voting for Democrats for over a hundred years now...and they are still poor.
I submit that it depends on the aspirations of the individual. Almost all of us are "poor" at the time we first enter the work force; those who are ambitious and plan to become wealthy will support conservatives, those who have no such ambition or hope will support liberals.
Does anyone actually have any data...
Ummm...
I submit your submission has no real world value.
those who are ambitious and plan to become wealthy will support conservatives
I submit that you're wrong.
I'm ambitious, hard-working, self-sufficient, and quite liberal.
Liberal agendas would probably benefit me, yet I'm a conservative because I think liberalism is bad for the country.
I guess we cancel each other out.
Yes, however, being poor is substantially better than it was 100 years ago.
And without the expense of handouts and "safety nets", taxes which tend to hold many in the upper middle class back from becoming wealthy could be reduced. Potentially all economic classes could climb a rung or two on the economic ladder if we eleminated giveaways.
Could it be that what we call "poor" is actually middle class and what we call middle class is actually quite rich?
Are you poor?I submit that you're wrong.
I'm ambitious, hard-working, self-sufficient, and quite liberal.
I partially agree with your characterization of the parties - Republicans have done a very poor job of representing conservatism over the last few years, but Democrats have certainly represented a lot more liberalism than the country is willing to accept.On the assumption that Conservative and Liberal means the same to everyone.
And that Republicans actually represent conservatism.
And Democrats actually represent Liberalism.
Which I don't feel either do.
His post seems based on the idea that people are only concerned for their personal best interest. However it is known that people are social creatures who have qualities such as love and compassion, so ultimately, the scope of his reasoning is inadequate to explain human nature, motivation, or action.
In other words, he is only looking at this through a selfish lens and is assuming that people are like him.
That may be true, but being middle class or rich today is also substantially better than it was 100 years ago. The fact is that the poverty still exists and no amount of government handouts to the poor is going to cure poverty
- it only perpetuates poverty.
But I really don't know what voting for Democrats or Republicans has to do with any of this seeing how both Democrats and Republicans tend to be all for handouts.
Without the handouts and "safety nets" the poor would have to work, and work tends to increase income.
And without the expense of handouts and "safety nets", taxes which tend to hold many in the upper middle class back from becoming wealthy could be reduced. Potentially all economic classes could climb a rung or two on the economic ladder if we eleminated giveaways.
So my question is, if the poor all suddenly made more money and had a higher standard of living, along with everyone else, would the poor still be poor?
And if the poor are now less poor than they were 100 years ago, does that mean that they are still poor? Could it be that what we call "poor" is actually middle class and what we call middle class is actually quite rich?
That's an interesting, if myopic, viewpoint. In my experience, conservatives tend to take their responsibilities personally by volunteering their time and spending their own money to support various charities; liberals tend to demand other people's tax money to support the causes they like. It's not a definitive split of course, and there are exceptions, but I contend it is generally accurate.
The majority of poor people have jobs, in cases, more than one.
How can that be? A job, well, yes, maybe a part time job, but certainly not anything that most of us would consider full employment. Minimim wage is now $7.25/hr, times a MINIMAL workweek of 40 hours a week, times 50 weeks a year is $14,500 a year, almost $4k over the federal government guidline for being "poor". A newly married couple could make nealy $30k/yr without even working any overtime on minimum wage, certainly that is not wealthy, but it can indeed pay for a modest apartment or in-law suite and a used car.
Most poor people are chronically poor. Poor forever. Poor people who are chronically poor are poor because they don't work. If they did work (grown up hours at a grown up job) they wouldn't be poor. Maybe poor if they live in some expensive areas, but no one forces them to live in those areas. People who choose to have children that they cant aford are also poor by choice - babies don't just spontaniously appear.
That is why people are trying to determine what constitutes a "liveable" wage. That is a wage that accounts for food, shelter, and health care. As such, we do have a large segment of the poor by liveable standards who are working. Given the spending trends, the middle class will likely be "working poor" by liveable standards within this decade.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?