How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

[Riot]

Good article in Rolling Stone. As an aside that proves the point, campaign finance reveals show that only 17 billionaires are funding more than 50% of all Republican donations this primary season.

We have 300,000,000 citizens. 17 have major control over who becomes President of the United States.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz1qpYuTTwI

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

[joeydb]

Bull.

The GOP represents everyone NOT getting a subsidy check from the government.

You should be asking "How did the Democrats became the food stamp, welfare, SSI, medicaid, medicare, family-destroying party?", and in a two party system, where is everyone not represented in that sentence going to throw their support?

Especially since everyone not represented in that sentence is PAYING for EVERYTHING.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Bull.

The GOP represents everyone NOT getting a subsidy check from the government.

You should be asking "How did the Democrats became the food stamp, welfare, SSI, medicaid, medicare, family-destroying party?", and in a two party system, where is everyone not represented in that sentence going to throw their support?

Especially since everyone not represented in that sentence is PAYING for EVERYTHING.

Patently ****ing absurd.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Patently ****ing absurd.

Really? Which group mentioned above is likely to vote republican? The welfare recipients? The food stamp recipients? Which one(s) did I get wrong?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Really? Which group mentioned above is likely to vote republican? The welfare recipients? The food stamp recipients? Which one(s) did I get wrong?

You got it all wrong. Completely backwards. Factually, yes, people on welfare and government subsidies, highest in the "red" states, tend to vote Republican.

The poorest states, the states with the most citizens on government assistance, both state and federal, are states that vote strongly Republican.

Here's a map where the states that take more in federal government assistance than they pay in taxes, the biggest "welfare states", are in red:



Here's a map of the way the states voted in the 2009 Presidential. Red is Republican:

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

You got it all wrong. Completely backwards. Factually, yes, people on welfare and government subsidies, highest in the "red" states, tend to vote Republican.

The poorest states, the states with the most citizens on government assistance, both state and federal, are states that vote strongly Republican.

Here's a map where the states that take more in federal government assistance than they pay in taxes, the biggest "welfare states", are in red:



Here's a map of the way the states voted in the 2009 Presidential. Red is Republican:

This doesn't take into account population though. There are more people on some form of assistance in NY than there are people in some of the other states. Just because the wealthy NYers are footing the tax bill doesn't change what the real ratios are.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

This doesn't take into account population though.

Yes, that first map does indeed, by comparing it directly to tax input. The biggest welfare states, the states that take out more than they contribute, and receive it in government handouts , the "welfare states", are the red states in the first map.

Whatever way you calculate it, it is the poorest states that have the most children on welfare, adults on welfare, both on Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Those are the red states that vote Republican.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, that first map does indeed, by comparing it directly to tax input. The biggest welfare states, the states that take out more than they contribute, and receive it in government handouts , the "welfare states", are the red states in the first map.

Whatever way you calculate it, it is the poorest states that have the most children on welfare, adults on welfare, both on Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Those are the red states that vote Republican.

So the almost 2MM folks in NY somehow cost less than the 61K in North Dakota?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, that first map does indeed, by comparing it directly to tax input. The biggest welfare states, the states that take out more than they contribute, and receive it in government handouts , the "welfare states", are the red states in the first map.

Whatever way you calculate it, it is the poorest states that have the most children on welfare, adults on welfare, both on Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Those are the red states that vote Republican.

The "richest" states would be California and NY I suppose?

No shot they do not have the highest numbers of people on some form of assistance.

[Riot]

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco...tal-recipients

Welfare only (not food or medical assistance) in absolute population numbers (not percentage of population)

Rank States Amount
# 1 California: 1,085,627
# 2 New York: 341,004
# 3 Texas: 333,435
# 4 Pennsylvania: 207,429
# 5 Michigan: 202,469
# 6 Ohio: 188,108
# 7 Tennessee: 180,466
# 8 Washington: 140,721
# 9 Indiana: 140,571
# 10 Georgia: 132,003
# 11 Florida: 119,080
# 12 Arizona: 111,334
# 13 Missouri: 108,561
# 14 Massachusetts: 108,469
# 15 New Jersey: 101,854
# 16 Illinois: 99,952
# 17 Minnesota: 93,665
# 18 North Carolina: 83,906
# 19 Kentucky: 76,688
# 20 Virginia: 70,199
# 21 Maryland: 62,066
# 22 Louisiana: 56,157
# 23 Puerto Rico: 54,544
# 24 Iowa: 51,713
# 25 South Carolina: 48,028

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

The "richest" states would be California and NY I suppose?

No shot they do not have the highest numbers of people on some form of assistance.

That's not what the map says. The map delineates states that are "poor" - where the citizens receive more tax dollars in the form of welfare, medical, and food assistance, than the state population contributes to the rest of us. In other words, the top map is where we, all of us, on the federal and state level, are paying into those states, to support their citizens on welfare, medicaid, food assistance, child assistance, etc.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco...tal-recipients

Welfare only (not food or medical assistance)

Rank States Amount
# 1 California: 1,085,627
# 2 New York: 341,004
# 3 Texas: 333,435
# 4 Pennsylvania: 207,429
# 5 Michigan: 202,469
# 6 Ohio: 188,108
# 7 Tennessee: 180,466
# 8 Washington: 140,721
# 9 Indiana: 140,571
# 10 Georgia: 132,003
# 11 Florida: 119,080
# 12 Arizona: 111,334
# 13 Missouri: 108,561
# 14 Massachusetts: 108,469
# 15 New Jersey: 101,854
# 16 Illinois: 99,952
# 17 Minnesota: 93,665
# 18 North Carolina: 83,906
# 19 Kentucky: 76,688
# 20 Virginia: 70,199
# 21 Maryland: 62,066
# 22 Louisiana: 56,157
# 23 Puerto Rico: 54,544
# 24 Iowa: 51,713
# 25 South Carolina: 48,028

Well there you have it, thanks.
Cali and NY alone account for as much as just about every red state on here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Well there you have it, thanks.
Cali and NY alone account for as much as just about every red state on here.

But they don't take out more in welfare than they put in. They put in, nationally, more than they take out. They are not "welfare receiving state" - they are a "we pay the welfare for the other states" state. Other states that are poor live off them. And those are mostly Republican states.

The states who have the greatest living off the largess of others, living off government programs of welfare, food aid, Medicaid, taking out more than they put in, are the poorest states, and are those that tend to vote Republican.

Jesus said help thy neighbors. Give to the poor. Worry about the least of these. The red states, who happen to also be the most religious states, certainly willingly take welfare help from the rich states. And you know? We, as a country, should help our poor and starving. And it doesn't take religion, plenty of atheists are generous to those in need. There is nothing wrong with that. That is not evil, or bad. Welfare reform in the 1990's eliminated lifetime welfare "queens" (something created out of thin air by Ronald Reagan, btw, for a campaign theme)

[Riot]

Joey and Clip-Clop: what did you think of the Rolling Stone article, and the history of the modern Republican party?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Joey and Clip-Clop: what did you think of the Rolling Stone article, and the history of the modern Republican party?

I am totally dis-satisfied with the actions of the federal government since I started following things very closely in '91. I feel that my party (R) has abandoned me and the great many like me over that time.
The article was a bit opinion laden for my tastes but for the most part an accurate portrayal.
I would have appreciated the author possibly mentioning that during his first two years in office with control over the house and senate the Obama White House did absolutely nothing to counter-act what they criticized all along.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I am totally dis-satisfied with the actions of the federal government since I started following things very closely in '91. I feel that my party (R) has abandoned me and the great many like me over that time.
The article was a bit opinion laden for my tastes but for the most part an accurate portrayal.
I would have appreciated the author possibly mentioning that during his first two years in office with control over the house and senate the Obama White House did absolutely nothing to counter-act what they criticized all along.

I agree with your take on the party changing, especially as I was raised "R" starting in the 1960's.

The party of educated, thoughtful conservatism as lead by William F. Buckley Jr. has become ... Glenn Beck and Hannity screeching about evil elites.