I merely stated a fact, that the people in this country who pay the bills voted for Bush by a higher % than those who don't. A person's worth is a completely different topic, that I'd like to avoid entirely if you don't mind.The Shake said:
OTB
Some interesting numbers.
- Thread starter Bush League
- Start date
OTB
Perhaps we're asking the wrong question, do liberal votes live in the city because they’re liberal or does living in a city make you liberal.Drunken Master said:My vote is for option A. I have yet to meet a single person who has moved out of the city because of the plauge of liberalism in urban centers, although I have meet a few people who have moved away from the country for the opposite reason. I also don't believe there's anything inherently "conservative" about rural life; quite a few of the left-leaning cornerstones of Canadian life, such a Medicare, originated in rural political movements.
I've it said before, and I'll say it again: the right has spent the last few decades making a solid case to rural voters, while the left has mostly been talking amongst themselves about what's best for these voters. It's not at all surprising which strategy worked best.
OTB
"Subsidized" implies a valuation. The only way the lower half could stop this "subsidization" would be to turn over all of their income to the government, and then some. Puts them in sort of a bind, doesn't it? You're either a leech or you're starving. I find that elitist, but that may just be me.onthebottom said:I did not use "fair share" because that gets into how progressive a tax system should be, my point was that the bottom half of the country (from an income perspective) pay 10% of income taxes, thus they are subsidized by the top half. You can add whatever value system you want to this but at the end of the day the people paying the bills (those making over 50k) voted for Bush.
I'm not sure what in that FACT you find elitist.
OTB
You also noted that the top half are the ones who are "doing all the work", and then quickly, if ineffectually, recanted. I'm hard pressed to see how anyone could fail to find that elitist.
If we could get more well-off Northern Republicans to go South and tell people there they aren't working hard and should be thankful they're being "subsidized" by the rich, we'd see a pretty quick end to the dominance of the right there...
You're reading something into my posts that is not there (or at least I didn't intend it to be there). It is a fact that the top half pays all the bills (they must as you point out). That half voted for Bush (largely).Drunken Master said:"Subsidized" implies a valuation. The only way the lower half could stop this "subsidization" would be to turn over all of their income to the government, and then some. Puts them in sort of a bind, doesn't it? You're either a leech or you're starving. I find that elitist, but that may just be me.
You also noted that the top half are the ones who are "doing all the work", and then quickly, if ineffectually, recanted. I'm hard pressed to see how anyone could fail to find that elitist.
If we could get more well-off Northern Republicans to go South and tell people there they aren't working hard and should be thankful they're being "subsidized" by the rich, we'd see a pretty quick end to the dominance of the right there...
Clear enough.
OTB
Fair enough.onthebottom said:You're reading something into my posts that is not there (or at least I didn't intend it to be there). It is a fact that the top half pays all the bills (they must as you point out). That half voted for Bush (largely).
OTB
No, they pay more in direct taxes. It's unfortunate the you're dismissing the sweat equity that the working classes pay into the system.onthebottom said:It is a fact that the top half pays all the bills
