GOP: Not just a Party of "Old White Men."

[JohnStOnge]

Rather, the GOP is the party that is consistently supported by a modest majority of Whites in general while the Democratic Party's strength is in overwhelming support among non-Whites.

Even in this last election, which was conducted under very difficult circumstances for Republicans, the exit polling estimate is that McCain beat Obama by 55 - 43% among Whites. He beat him by an estimated 57-41% among White males and by an estimated 53-46% among White females. Exit polling data at Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com breaks voters into four age/race categories and McCain beat Obama by margins of at least an estimated 56-42% among every White age group except 18 - 29.

If you look at the way things break down in terms of electoral votes, exit polling clearly indicates that McCain won among Whites in 29 States accounting for 280 electoral votes (i.e., enough to win). Another four States, including Obama's home State of Illinois, were "statistical ties" in terms of how Whites voted. If you assume that whoever came out ahead in the estimates actually did receive the majority of votes among Whites, New Jersey and Maryland are in McCain's column and he won among Whites in 31 States accounting for 305 electoral votes.

So why did Obama win? Because, like any Democrat, he held an overwhelming edge among non-White voters. The exit polling estimate was 80 - 18%.

And, no, there's no evidence in exit pollling to suggest that the majority of Whites voted against Obama because of his race. Obama actually did better among Whites than Kerry did, as Bush beat Kerry by an estimated 58 - 41% among Whites. Also, if you study the exit polling results at the link I provided, you will see that most of the people who considered race of candidates important to how they voted selected Obama. It's more of a Party thing. Republicans have always beaten Democrats among Whites since at least as far back as 1976, and Democrats have won by overwhelming majorities among non-Whites every time since at least that far back as well.

 

[ItsFairmont]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

 

[del]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.


voting tally on the bill

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yurt]

i cannot understand how black people vote for dems in the 80% range and then obama comes along and it is in the 95% range...yet republicans are apparently racist because more whites vote for them...

more liberal looney logic, you're only racist if you're white

 

[WillowTree]

I remember Sen. Byrd.. Wasn't he the grand ohmpaa paaa of the KKK?

 

[Red Dawn]

Rather, the GOP is the party that is consistently supported by a modest majority of Whites in general while the Democratic Party's strength is in overwhelming support among non-Whites.

Even in this last election, which was conducted under very difficult circumstances for Republicans, the exit polling estimate is that McCain beat Obama by 55 - 43% among Whites. He beat him by an estimated 57-41% among White males and by an estimated 53-46% among White females. Exit polling data at Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com breaks voters into four age/race categories and McCain beat Obama by margins of at least an estimated 56-42% among every White age group except 18 - 29.

If you look at the way things break down in terms of electoral votes, exit polling clearly indicates that McCain won among Whites in 29 States accounting for 280 electoral votes (i.e., enough to win). Another four States, including Obama's home State of Illinois, were "statistical ties" in terms of how Whites voted. If you assume that whoever came out ahead in the estimates actually did receive the majority of votes among Whites, New Jersey and Maryland are in McCain's column and he won among Whites in 31 States accounting for 305 electoral votes.

So why did Obama win? Because, like any Democrat, he held an overwhelming edge among non-White voters. The exit polling estimate was 80 - 18%.

And, no, there's no evidence in exit pollling to suggest that the majority of Whites voted against Obama because of his race. Obama actually did better among Whites than Kerry did, as Bush beat Kerry by an estimated 58 - 41% among Whites. Also, if you study the exit polling results at the link I provided, you will see that most of the people who considered race of candidates important to how they voted selected Obama. It's more of a Party thing. Republicans have always beaten Democrats among Whites since at least as far back as 1976, and Democrats have won by overwhelming majorities among non-Whites every time since at least that far back as well.

are you channeling William Joyce?

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

 

[WillowTree]

i cannot understand how black people vote for dems in the 80% range and then obama comes along and it is in the 95% range...yet republicans are apparently racist because more whites vote for them...

more liberal looney logic, you're only racist if you're white

Amazing innit? the left wing loons are contortionary genuis'

 

[JohnStOnge]

One question I have is this:

Why is it "bad" that Republicans depend upon modest majority support among Whites but "not bad" that Democrats depend upon ovewhelming majority support among non-Whites? Seriously, if Democratic Party support among non-Whites were at the level of support Republicans enjoy among Whites, the Democratic Party would be in trouble. If it was, McCain would probably be President right now. The point is that it's not only depending on having a majority of non whites, it's depending upon non-Whites being in Lock Step support of Democrats. Why is there no labeling of the Democratic Party as "The party of racial minorities?" Why is there no negative connotation to the Democratic Party never being able to win among Whites in national elections?

 

[JohnStOnge]

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

And why should people care if "Old White Men" tend to vote Republican? The point is that the Republican Party gets criticized for having support among a certain demographic group while the Democratic Party does not. Again: If it's "bad" for Republicans to rely on support among White Males, who voted by an estiamted 57 - 41% for McCain in 2008, why is it not "bad" for Democrats to rely on overwhelming support among non-Whites, who voted by an estimated 80 - 18% for Obama, for remaining competetive on a national level?

I'll tell you something else, too. If you are White, you need to seriously consider the ramifications of the fact that the Democratic Party relies, not only upon majority support among non-Whites, but overwhelming majority support. You need to seriously consider the question of whether or not your interests are best served by a Party that has its bread buttered in that way.

 

[foggedinn]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.


voting tally on the bill

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics is perception. Whatever the "facts" may be, it is the perception in the south that democrats were responsible for passage of the civil rights act.

Fairmount is correct that it was the perception that democrats were reponsible for passage of the civil rights act that caused the south to go from a solid democratic region to a solid republican region.

you can cite facts till you are blue in the face, but, it will not overcome perception.

 

[Yurt]

Rather, the GOP is the party that is consistently supported by a modest majority of Whites in general while the Democratic Party's strength is in overwhelming support among non-Whites.

Even in this last election, which was conducted under very difficult circumstances for Republicans, the exit polling estimate is that McCain beat Obama by 55 - 43% among Whites. He beat him by an estimated 57-41% among White males and by an estimated 53-46% among White females. Exit polling data at Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com breaks voters into four age/race categories and McCain beat Obama by margins of at least an estimated 56-42% among every White age group except 18 - 29.

If you look at the way things break down in terms of electoral votes, exit polling clearly indicates that McCain won among Whites in 29 States accounting for 280 electoral votes (i.e., enough to win). Another four States, including Obama's home State of Illinois, were "statistical ties" in terms of how Whites voted. If you assume that whoever came out ahead in the estimates actually did receive the majority of votes among Whites, New Jersey and Maryland are in McCain's column and he won among Whites in 31 States accounting for 305 electoral votes.

So why did Obama win? Because, like any Democrat, he held an overwhelming edge among non-White voters. The exit polling estimate was 80 - 18%.

And, no, there's no evidence in exit pollling to suggest that the majority of Whites voted against Obama because of his race. Obama actually did better among Whites than Kerry did, as Bush beat Kerry by an estimated 58 - 41% among Whites. Also, if you study the exit polling results at the link I provided, you will see that most of the people who considered race of candidates important to how they voted selected Obama. It's more of a Party thing. Republicans have always beaten Democrats among Whites since at least as far back as 1976, and Democrats have won by overwhelming majorities among non-Whites every time since at least that far back as well.

are you channeling William Joyce?

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

how you got even close to thinking that is what he meant is beyond boggling...i would suggest you not call anyone else a retard

 

[William Joyce]

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

And why should people care if "Old White Men" tend to vote Republican? The point is that the Republican Party gets criticized for having support among a certain demographic group while the Democratic Party does not. Again: If it's "bad" for Republicans to rely on support among White Males, who voted by an estiamted 57 - 41% for McCain in 2008, why is it not "bad" for Democrats to rely on overwhelming support among non-Whites, who voted by an estimated 80 - 18% for Obama, for remaining competetive on a national level?

I'll tell you something else, too. If you are White, you need to seriously consider the ramifications of the fact that the Democratic Party relies, not only upon majority support among non-Whites, but overwhelming majority support. You need to seriously consider the question of whether or not your interests are best served by a Party that has its bread buttered in that way.

Yes, but good luck trying get even many REPUBLICANS to understand these fair points. It's perfectly acceptable for blacks, Hispanics or any other group to exercise their "group power" and for politicians to "reach out" to them... but woe unto any politician who says he's going to "reach out" to whites!

In my view, Republicans should ACCEPT that they have emerged as a party with a lot of white support and FULFILL THAT ROLE by openly advocating for white causes, like anti-affirmative action, etc.

But Republicans at the elite levels are too busy worrying about being called "racist" that they won't do that, and make themselves look like idiots by trying to get blacks to join their party.

 

[Tank]

I have been too and seen the countrys that Africans and Hispanics control, trust me "old white men" running America is a good thing.

 

[Yurt]

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

And why should people care if "Old White Men" tend to vote Republican? The point is that the Republican Party gets criticized for having support among a certain demographic group while the Democratic Party does not. Again: If it's "bad" for Republicans to rely on support among White Males, who voted by an estiamted 57 - 41% for McCain in 2008, why is it not "bad" for Democrats to rely on overwhelming support among non-Whites, who voted by an estimated 80 - 18% for Obama, for remaining competetive on a national level?

I'll tell you something else, too. If you are White, you need to seriously consider the ramifications of the fact that the Democratic Party relies, not only upon majority support among non-Whites, but overwhelming majority support. You need to seriously consider the question of whether or not your interests are best served by a Party that has its bread buttered in that way.

Yes, but good luck trying get even many REPUBLICANS to understand these fair points. It's perfectly acceptable for blacks, Hispanics or any other group to exercise their "group power" and for politicians to "reach out" to them... but woe unto any politician who says he's going to "reach out" to whites!

In my view, Republicans should ACCEPT that they have emerged as a party with a lot of white support and FULFILL THAT ROLE by openly advocating for white causes, like anti-affirmative action, etc.

But Republicans at the elite levels are too busy worrying about being called "racist" that they won't do that, and make themselves look like idiots by trying to get blacks to join their party.

actually a good point

edit

just look at how many libs just on this board alone said the tea parties were racist simply because not many blacks attended.

 

[Old Rocks]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.


voting tally on the bill

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the Dixiecrats voted against the Civil Right Act en masse. And we had real Republicans at that time. Today, the Rushpublicans would have voted, by a large majority, against it. The Republican Party saw a chance to take the South away from the Democrats after the Civil Rights Act, and did so by pandering to the racists in the South. Unfortunetly, the people that they pandered to now have a very large influence on the party.

 

[Old Rocks]

One question I have is this:

Why is it "bad" that Republicans depend upon modest majority support among Whites but "not bad" that Democrats depend upon ovewhelming majority support among non-Whites? Seriously, if Democratic Party support among non-Whites were at the level of support Republicans enjoy among Whites, the Democratic Party would be in trouble. If it was, McCain would probably be President right now. The point is that it's not only depending on having a majority of non whites, it's depending upon non-Whites being in Lock Step support of Democrats. Why is there no labeling of the Democratic Party as "The party of racial minorities?" Why is there no negative connotation to the Democratic Party never being able to win among Whites in national elections?

Who said it was bad. It is a fact. And it is a fact that most of the non-white population see more of a chance of achieving success if there is a Democratic government in DC. If the Rushpublicans are going to win elections, they are going to have to change that perception. They will not succeed in doing that by simply being the party of "No".

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

And why should people care if "Old White Men" tend to vote Republican? The point is that the Republican Party gets criticized for having support among a certain demographic group while the Democratic Party does not. Again: If it's "bad" for Republicans to rely on support among White Males, who voted by an estiamted 57 - 41% for McCain in 2008, why is it not "bad" for Democrats to rely on overwhelming support among non-Whites, who voted by an estimated 80 - 18% for Obama, for remaining competetive on a national level?

I'll tell you something else, too. If you are White, you need to seriously consider the ramifications of the fact that the Democratic Party relies, not only upon majority support among non-Whites, but overwhelming majority support. You need to seriously consider the question of whether or not your interests are best served by a Party that has its bread buttered in that way.

Well, since my interests are more in line with the people that create the wealth on the factory floor, rather than the people that are parasitical, and sponge off of them, the Republican Party has nothing to show me.

It has turned into a party for the very rich, pandering to the very people that have created the debacle that is economically damaging so many of the people that I work with. And a higher percentage of these people are non-white, than the parasitical class.

 

[Yurt]

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

And why should people care if "Old White Men" tend to vote Republican? The point is that the Republican Party gets criticized for having support among a certain demographic group while the Democratic Party does not. Again: If it's "bad" for Republicans to rely on support among White Males, who voted by an estiamted 57 - 41% for McCain in 2008, why is it not "bad" for Democrats to rely on overwhelming support among non-Whites, who voted by an estimated 80 - 18% for Obama, for remaining competetive on a national level?

I'll tell you something else, too. If you are White, you need to seriously consider the ramifications of the fact that the Democratic Party relies, not only upon majority support among non-Whites, but overwhelming majority support. You need to seriously consider the question of whether or not your interests are best served by a Party that has its bread buttered in that way.

Well, since my interests are more in line with the people that create the wealth on the factory floor, rather than the people that are parasitical, and sponge off of them, the Republican Party has nothing to show me.

It has turned into a party for the very rich, pandering to the very people that have created the debacle that is economically damaging so many of the people that I work with. And a higher percentage of these people are non-white, than the parasitical class.

what proof do you have these people you speak of are parasitical? wealthy people create jobs and donate money and live and breathe like the rest of us...i've seen middle class people that rip people off and screw them over, i've seen poor people rip them people off and suck people dry, like your parasite analogy... hopefully you aren't talking solely about rich people, because such a generalization would be full of meadowmuffins and completely unsupportable.

your extreme bias is unfortunate, as if no republicans work on a factory floor. pity you have such a myopic view of the world.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Well, since my interests are more in line with the people that create the wealth on the factory floor, rather than the people that are parasitical, and sponge off of them, the Republican Party has nothing to show me.

It has turned into a party for the very rich, pandering to the very people that have created the debacle that is economically damaging so many of the people that I work with. And a higher percentage of these people are non-white, than the parasitical class.

That is hysterical. We live in a country where a small percentage of the people bear the overwhelming burden for providing the revenue to run this country and you're calling them "parasites."

It's hard to find very recent figures but here's a link about percentages of all federal taxes paid except estate taxes and gift levies in 1979 and 2000:

Distribution of Federal Taxes and Income, 1979-2000

I look for that kind of thing because the standard line spouted when people talking about the "rich" paying the overwhelming preponderance of the taxes is that "everybody" pays payroll taxes.

Anyway, as of 2000, the top 20% paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes except estate and gift taxes while the bottom 20% paid 1.1%. So who are the parasites? Who is living in this country while paying almost nothing towards its operation?

The top 40% paid 84.1% while the bottom 40% paid 5.9%. Who are the parasites? Who is getting the "free-er" ride?

And I think we can agree that including estate and gift taxes would just shift the imbalance more towards the top 20 or 40%.

This is the same old demagougery against "the rich." We've established a system in this country where the majority of the people get the benefits offered by the federal government while somebody else (the "rich") pays for it. It's a sick system. It's real easy to vote for politicians to increase the scope of government, to increase government spending, etc.; when you're not the one who's going to pay for it.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[
Well, since my interests are more in line with the people that create the wealth on the factory floor,.

The people on the factory floor are not the ones who create the wealth. The ones who create the wealth are the ones who spawned the ideas that created the factory floor, the ones who invested the money who created the reality. The people on the factory floor are just people who were hired to implement the vision.

I know that's not a "populist" statement, but it's the truth. It's a whole lot easier to just take a job and show up to screw a bolt on than it is to come up with an idea for a product, a strategy for marketing it, and so on. ANYBODY can show up to screw a bolt on.