CDZ When did so-called "regular folks" head in droves to the Republican Party? And why?

[Book of Jeremiah]

Trump

 

[oldsoul]

Today there remains very few moderate, common sense republicans interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy

--- and when such do show up, they're demonized by the rabid as "RINOs".

One can assume, as these two agree with each other, that the posts, and thus ideas, are related. In that context I ask the following:
Why must one be "moderate", to be "interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy"? If a person has other veiws, that happen to be more right of center than you would like, does that mean they are not "common sense" people? Can one not have "common sense" and disagree with you?

Further, why is it that, in my observation, during recent years (the last 15-20) the "right" seems to have to move further to the "left" to "compromise"? Why is it that the "left" never seems to give as much as they get, yet still complain about the "right" not being willing to "compromise"?

 

[Pogo]

Today there remains very few moderate, common sense republicans interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy

--- and when such do show up, they're demonized by the rabid as "RINOs".

One can assume, as these two agree with each other, that the posts, and thus ideas, are related. In that context I ask the following:
Why must one be "moderate", to be "interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy"? If a person has other veiws, that happen to be more right of center than you would like, does that mean they are not "common sense" people? Can one not have "common sense" and disagree with you?

Further, why is it that, in my observation, during recent years (the last 15-20) the "right" seems to have to move further to the "left" to "compromise"? Why is it that the "left" never seems to give as much as they get, yet still complain about the "right" not being willing to "compromise"?

I don't follow how any of that relates to my post at all.

 

[baileyn45]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Personally I find tracking economic performance to presidents is nonsensical. There are so many variables at play and more often than not any policies enacted do not work over night.

As to what drives "regular" folks to the reps, I agree with other posters that it depends on your definition of "regular". From my own experience I don't see a lot of blue collar workers in those ranks. At the same time I know very few small business owners that are not in those ranks. I would also add the vast majority of the self employed. I believe it's a different outlook, one side looks to govt for all solutions the other just wants the govt to get out of the way.

 

[320 Years of History]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Personally I find tracking economic performance to presidents is nonsensical. There are so many variables at play and more often than not any policies enacted do not work overnight.

As to what drives "regular" folks to the reps, I agree with other posters that it depends on your definition of "regular". From my own experience I don't see a lot of blue collar workers in those ranks. At the same time I know very few small business owners that are not in those ranks. I would also add the vast majority of the self employed. I believe it's a different outlook, one side looks to govt for all solutions the other just wants the govt to get out of the way.

Red:
I think that's a fair remark, one that goes directly to heart of question #1 that I asked. If one recognizes the miniscularity of impact a President has on national economic performance, why bring it up as being something that's dissatisfying about, wrong with, disappointing about a candidate's proposed economic platform or an existing President's policies?

Blue:
Perhaps it does. Perhaps my definition is less well conceived than I would have liked it be. "Regular folks" is certainly a term that's difficult to define; so is "small business," if you ask me. I was asked to define the term and I did because I don't normally duck or sidestep questions. I didn't want to answer it because I know it's the sort of question that's nothing but a hornet's nest the instant I do answer it. Strategic error on my part for using that term? Probably, but it is what it is; I did it, so I have to live with it.

For example, re: "small business," what would you call a firm that has 125 - 150 employees and that is privately owned? I suspect most folks would call that a small business. I would. Upon finding out that business is an investment advisory firm with over $18B in assets under management, would they still call it a small business? I probably still would, but I'd know that it's not the type of company one generally has in mind when one says "small business." What about a business having ~400 employees, nearly all of whom, save for dozen or so, are essentially blue collar laborers, but the business produces ~$18M or so a year in net profit (not necessarily "take home" profits) for its half dozen family member owners? I think that's also a small business, but again, not the sort one typically thinks of when one says "small business."

I'm not looking for you (or anyone) to answer. I'm just point out that in the context of this thread, what constitutes "regular folks," like "small business," is a qualitative thing more so than it is a quantitative one. I think one has to use a reasonable degree of reasonable judgment in evaluating what those terms mean.

• Guy #1 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a solidly upper income family
  • Went to boarding school or "posh" day school
  • Went to an elite college and graduate school
  • Is a business principal (partner in a firm; senior exec or higher in a $1B+ corporation, etc.); $800K/year salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Is well known among his peers in his professional and has a wide social circle comprised of lots of folks who've met him, but who largely know him by reputation; nobody outside business or social circle would know him or recognize his name.
  • Dwells on the fringes of local and national political power, and has some access to it, is well known socially by a few folks having political power (neighbors, fellow club members, or something roughly of that nature), but has no political capital of his own.
• Guy #2 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a middle income family
  • Went to school (not boarding, not "posh" day school, maybe or maybe not private) and did well
  • Went to college, maybe or maybe not grad school
  • Works as a mid level manager (any size company) or owns a "mom & pop ish" business; $250K/year household salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Well known among his local business peers and has a small social circle consisting of folks he's met and with whom he's developed close friendships and acquaintanceships
  • Has met people with local or national political power, but isn't known by them and doesn't know them either (neither is likely to be on the guest list at an event hosted by the other); has no political capital of his own.

Now in my mind, both those guys are "regular guys." I get why Guy #1 might be a Republican, because though he's a "regular guy," financially he's far from it. Guy #2, though not remotely struggling economically (based on what's given above), there's little that makes me see intrinsically why he might be a Republican. I realize that either guy need not necessarily be Republican or Democrat.

What makes Guy #1 more understandably to me Republican is that his fortunes are far more closely linked to big business and the risk aversion concomitant with that. Guy #1 doesn't depend directly on the fortunes of large quantities of individuals for his own livelihood. Guy #2 on the other had, particularly if he's a business owner as described, probably does depend directly on lots of individuals for his livelihood.

I know there are going to all sorts of specifics and details that aren't stated above, myriad vagaries and exceptions to the outline I've tried to present, but you seem reasonable enough that you'll get the big picture of what I'm driving at and address it at that level. Obviously this thread's tone isn't about specific individuals and their circumstance.


Green:
I guess that's one way to portray the two parties. I think most folks -- liberal, conservative, in between -- want the government to stay out of their lives, and I think most folks want the governments to solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals.

I'm an independent, and I want my roads paved, my trash picked up, my taxes to leave me with enough money to enjoy my life, my airports and country safe, and the freedom to safely travel the globe. I don't want to have people starving or homeless for any reason in the U.S. I want to feel confident that Earth (environmentally) will not substantively change between now and 200 years from now. I want to see the day when race, sexual orientation, religion and gender are genuinely irrelevant outside of their immediate individual existence, and known/believed to be so, by the overwhelming majority of majority and minority of social identity group members. I think the governments need to perform or ensure some of those things; they need merely to catalyze and support others.

 

[sakinago]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

If this is what you view of those on the right, then you really are not listening to what they're saying (or at least what most CLAIM to believe), but rather what the left says about them. "Their rhetoric is what it is" is in fact a logical fallacy that also demonstrates you're not listening. Along with the fact that you are confused by why so many "regular folk" have up and flocked to the GOP. I understand what the left say and why they say it, I disagree on principles, but I'm not perplexed by it. We really need to start teaching the most common logical fallacies in arguments when kids are in kindergarten, so we can stop have two different conversations with each other all the time, and not be so confused when people disagree with us.

 

[320 Years of History]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

If this is what you view of those on the right, then you really are not listening to what they're saying (or at least what most CLAIM to believe), but rather what the left says about them. "Their rhetoric is what it is" is in fact a logical fallacy that also demonstrates you're not listening. Along with the fact that you are confused by why so many "regular folk" have up and flocked to the GOP. I understand what the left say and why they say it, I disagree on principles, but I'm not perplexed by it. We really need to start teaching the most common logical fallacies in arguments when kids are in kindergarten, so we can stop have two different conversations with each other all the time, and not be so confused when people disagree with us.

Well, thanks for participating, but not one word in your post helps me understand anything I didn't already understand and nothing in it shares information that I might not have known before. Maybe vacuous commentary like that is what has led to my being confused....

 

[sakinago]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

If this is what you view of those on the right, then you really are not listening to what they're saying (or at least what most CLAIM to believe), but rather what the left says about them. "Their rhetoric is what it is" is in fact a logical fallacy that also demonstrates you're not listening. Along with the fact that you are confused by why so many "regular folk" have up and flocked to the GOP. I understand what the left say and why they say it, I disagree on principles, but I'm not perplexed by it. We really need to start teaching the most common logical fallacies in arguments when kids are in kindergarten, so we can stop have two different conversations with each other all the time, and not be so confused when people disagree with us.

Well, thanks for participating, but not one word in your post helps me understand anything I didn't already understand and nothing in it shares information that I might not have known before. Maybe vacuous commentary like that is what has led to my being confused....

Point being is your OP is a loaded question, suggesting there's a problem with the "regular folk" moving right...which I don't think there's much evidence that there has been a move to the right by the "regular folk". And that a move right is siding with the country club folk.

Regular folk who consider themselves on the right (and who actually have a sense of what they believe, many don't, see trump supporters) are there not because they are siding with the country club folks. They're there bc they are siding with themselves, they believe that a bunch of folks in suits with flag lapels don't know or even care all that much what's best for them, their family, their money, their religion, their safety, what to teach their kids. They don't want lower taxes for the country club folk necessarily, but they want lower taxes for themselves. They believe there's a hubris to those in suits who think "we know best for you", when they see these people only care about their biggest donors, and what to say to keep their nice cushy seat in office. These people believe that the bigger the government is, the smaller they get.

 

[320 Years of History]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

If this is what you view of those on the right, then you really are not listening to what they're saying (or at least what most CLAIM to believe), but rather what the left says about them. "Their rhetoric is what it is" is in fact a logical fallacy that also demonstrates you're not listening. Along with the fact that you are confused by why so many "regular folk" have up and flocked to the GOP. I understand what the left say and why they say it, I disagree on principles, but I'm not perplexed by it. We really need to start teaching the most common logical fallacies in arguments when kids are in kindergarten, so we can stop have two different conversations with each other all the time, and not be so confused when people disagree with us.

Well, thanks for participating, but not one word in your post helps me understand anything I didn't already understand and nothing in it shares information that I might not have known before. Maybe vacuous commentary like that is what has led to my being confused....

Point being is your OP is a loaded question, suggesting there's a problem with the "regular folk" moving right...which I don't think there's much evidence that there has been a move to the right by the "regular folk". And that a move right is siding with the country club folk.

Regular folk who consider themselves on the right (and who actually have a sense of what they believe, many don't, see trump supporters) are there not because they are siding with the country club folks. They're there bc they are siding with themselves, they believe that a bunch of folks in suits with flag lapels don't know or even care all that much what's best for them, their family, their money, their religion, their safety, what to teach their kids. They don't want lower taxes for the country club folk necessarily, but they want lower taxes for themselves. They believe there's a hubris to those in suits who think "we know best for you", when they see these people only care about their biggest donors, and what to say to keep their nice cushy seat in office. These people believe that the bigger the government is, the smaller they get.

Thank you. That's a much better reply. It's a viewpoint I didn't perceive to be in place. I'll have to think about it and how well it aligns with what is observable re: the major parties, their approaches to governance and platforms.

 

[Searcher44]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Two factors possibly at the top of the list influencing people to vote Republican against their own interest.

1) The Southern Strategy.
2) The "Welfare Queen" false narrative. ("Those People are Taking What's Mine)

 

[waltky]

When did so-called "regular folks" head in droves to the Republican Party? And why?

Granny says is `cause Obama an' his Democrat gang...

... is turnin' dis country...

... into one big poor house.

 

[baileyn45]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Personally I find tracking economic performance to presidents is nonsensical. There are so many variables at play and more often than not any policies enacted do not work overnight.

As to what drives "regular" folks to the reps, I agree with other posters that it depends on your definition of "regular". From my own experience I don't see a lot of blue collar workers in those ranks. At the same time I know very few small business owners that are not in those ranks. I would also add the vast majority of the self employed. I believe it's a different outlook, one side looks to govt for all solutions the other just wants the govt to get out of the way.

Red:
I think that's a fair remark, one that goes directly to heart of question #1 that I asked. If one recognizes the miniscularity of impact a President has on national economic performance, why bring it up as being something that's dissatisfying about, wrong with, disappointing about a candidate's proposed economic platform or an existing President's policies?

Blue:
Perhaps it does. Perhaps my definition is less well conceived than I would have liked it be. "Regular folks" is certainly a term that's difficult to define; so is "small business," if you ask me. I was asked to define the term and I did because I don't normally duck or sidestep questions. I didn't want to answer it because I know it's the sort of question that's nothing but a hornet's nest the instant I do answer it. Strategic error on my part for using that term? Probably, but it is what it is; I did it, so I have to live with it.

For example, re: "small business," what would you call a firm that has 125 - 150 employees and that is privately owned? I suspect most folks would call that a small business. I would. Upon finding out that business is an investment advisory firm with over $18B in assets under management, would they still call it a small business? I probably still would, but I'd know that it's not the type of company one generally has in mind when one says "small business." What about a business having ~400 employees, nearly all of whom, save for dozen or so, are essentially blue collar laborers, but the business produces ~$18M or so a year in net profit (not necessarily "take home" profits) for its half dozen family member owners? I think that's also a small business, but again, not the sort one typically thinks of when one says "small business."

I'm not looking for you (or anyone) to answer. I'm just point out that in the context of this thread, what constitutes "regular folks," like "small business," is a qualitative thing more so than it is a quantitative one. I think one has to use a reasonable degree of reasonable judgment in evaluating what those terms mean.

• Guy #1 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a solidly upper income family
  • Went to boarding school or "posh" day school
  • Went to an elite college and graduate school
  • Is a business principal (partner in a firm; senior exec or higher in a $1B+ corporation, etc.); $800K/year salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Is well known among his peers in his professional and has a wide social circle comprised of lots of folks who've met him, but who largely know him by reputation; nobody outside business or social circle would know him or recognize his name.
  • Dwells on the fringes of local and national political power, and has some access to it, is well known socially by a few folks having political power (neighbors, fellow club members, or something roughly of that nature), but has no political capital of his own.
• Guy #2 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a middle income family
  • Went to school (not boarding, not "posh" day school, maybe or maybe not private) and did well
  • Went to college, maybe or maybe not grad school
  • Works as a mid level manager (any size company) or owns a "mom & pop ish" business; $250K/year household salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Well known among his local business peers and has a small social circle consisting of folks he's met and with whom he's developed close friendships and acquaintanceships
  • Has met people with local or national political power, but isn't known by them and doesn't know them either (neither is likely to be on the guest list at an event hosted by the other); has no political capital of his own.

Now in my mind, both those guys are "regular guys." I get why Guy #1 might be a Republican, because though he's a "regular guy," financially he's far from it. Guy #2, though not remotely struggling economically (based on what's given above), there's little that makes me see intrinsically why he might be a Republican. I realize that either guy need not necessarily be Republican or Democrat.

What makes Guy #1 more understandably to me Republican is that his fortunes are far more closely linked to big business and the risk aversion concomitant with that. Guy #1 doesn't depend directly on the fortunes of large quantities of individuals for his own livelihood. Guy #2 on the other had, particularly if he's a business owner as described, probably does depend directly on lots of individuals for his livelihood.

I know there are going to all sorts of specifics and details that aren't stated above, myriad vagaries and exceptions to the outline I've tried to present, but you seem reasonable enough that you'll get the big picture of what I'm driving at and address it at that level. Obviously this thread's tone isn't about specific individuals and their circumstance.


Green:
I guess that's one way to portray the two parties. I think most folks -- liberal, conservative, in between -- want the government to stay out of their lives, and I think most folks want the governments to solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals.

I'm an independent, and I want my roads paved, my trash picked up, my taxes to leave me with enough money to enjoy my life, my airports and country safe, and the freedom to safely travel the globe. I don't want to have people starving or homeless for any reason in the U.S. I want to feel confident that Earth (environmentally) will not substantively change between now and 200 years from now. I want to see the day when race, sexual orientation, religion and gender are genuinely irrelevant outside of their immediate individual existence, and known/believed to be so, by the overwhelming majority of majority and minority of social identity group members. I think the governments need to perform or ensure some of those things; they need merely to catalyze and support others.

Well we agree on the small direct impact presidents have economically, although there are times they do impact things indirectly, regulatory regimes, tax policy, etc.

As far as defining small business I believe the govt would use the 500 employee threshold. Your point of comparing say a financial firm to others is well taken, however being in manufacturing the 500 threshold works. Not that 500 employees is particularly small but in comparison to the GMs of the world you could make the argument.

In regards to your two examples, I do believe it depends on your field. In the case of #2 the fact that he depends on many individuals, namely employees, is where the problems begin. My father, a former business owner, often stated only half jokingly, that the worst thing you can do in this country is to hire some one. The moment you do you open yourself up to hundreds local govt bureaucrats, thousands of county and state bureaucrats, tens of thousands of federal bureaucrats and millions of lawyers. Many who see you as nothing more than prey or a revenue stream. That may sound a bit flippant but I mean it sincerely.

In my business I have open contracts with 3 separate former govt officials. One to keep my apprised of new safety and health regs, one for employment regs and one for healthcare regs. Add to that accounting professionals and of course legal representation. With the exception of legal these expenditures are there for one reason, to protect me from the govt. And when I say govt I mean local, county, state, fed, interstate regional, intrastate state regional, it just never ends and continues to grow perpetually.

This is what leads #2 to vote repub. While I know the repubs aren't truly for smaller less intrusive govt the dems are for larger govt on steroids. The repubs generally just plain "get it" more than the dems. I don't feel like public enemy number one with the repubs with the dems I'm convinced they plain and simply hate me.

Well with the danger of rambling too long I'll give you my personal rant of how govt drives me crazy.

My pet peeve is OSHA. Now I'm a safety freak and I have an excellent safety record. In the last 6 or so years I've been a party to two inspections, one at my firm another as a safety consultant. In the instance of my shop the inspector was a 23 year old cute girl that I know for a fact graduated from college a year earlier with a degree in English. The other inspector openly stated that 9 months earlier she was working behind the counter of a post office. In the case of the English major she was reviewing the operation and maintenance of heavy equipment with men that had been operating and maintaining that very equipment for longer than she has been alive, literally. In both cases a year earlier neither would have known an hydraulic power press from a trout.

Now they right us up and we end up paying former govt officials and lawyers to go to OSHA and prove to them that their inspectors haven't the vaguest idea of what they're doing. In both cases we pretty much prevailed. Our reward for prevailing? 10s of thousands of dollars in bills. And absolutely no improvement in safety what so ever.

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up.

 

[oldsoul]

Today there remains very few moderate, common sense republicans interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy

--- and when such do show up, they're demonized by the rabid as "RINOs".

One can assume, as these two agree with each other, that the posts, and thus ideas, are related. In that context I ask the following:
Why must one be "moderate", to be "interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy"? If a person has other veiws, that happen to be more right of center than you would like, does that mean they are not "common sense" people? Can one not have "common sense" and disagree with you?

Further, why is it that, in my observation, during recent years (the last 15-20) the "right" seems to have to move further to the "left" to "compromise"? Why is it that the "left" never seems to give as much as they get, yet still complain about the "right" not being willing to "compromise"?

I don't follow how any of that relates to my post at all.

Um, your post was in response to C_Clayton_Jones' post. Did you forget, or are you being obtuse?

 

[320 Years of History]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Personally I find tracking economic performance to presidents is nonsensical. There are so many variables at play and more often than not any policies enacted do not work overnight.

As to what drives "regular" folks to the reps, I agree with other posters that it depends on your definition of "regular". From my own experience I don't see a lot of blue collar workers in those ranks. At the same time I know very few small business owners that are not in those ranks. I would also add the vast majority of the self employed. I believe it's a different outlook, one side looks to govt for all solutions the other just wants the govt to get out of the way.

Red:
I think that's a fair remark, one that goes directly to heart of question #1 that I asked. If one recognizes the miniscularity of impact a President has on national economic performance, why bring it up as being something that's dissatisfying about, wrong with, disappointing about a candidate's proposed economic platform or an existing President's policies?

Blue:
Perhaps it does. Perhaps my definition is less well conceived than I would have liked it be. "Regular folks" is certainly a term that's difficult to define; so is "small business," if you ask me. I was asked to define the term and I did because I don't normally duck or sidestep questions. I didn't want to answer it because I know it's the sort of question that's nothing but a hornet's nest the instant I do answer it. Strategic error on my part for using that term? Probably, but it is what it is; I did it, so I have to live with it.

For example, re: "small business," what would you call a firm that has 125 - 150 employees and that is privately owned? I suspect most folks would call that a small business. I would. Upon finding out that business is an investment advisory firm with over $18B in assets under management, would they still call it a small business? I probably still would, but I'd know that it's not the type of company one generally has in mind when one says "small business." What about a business having ~400 employees, nearly all of whom, save for dozen or so, are essentially blue collar laborers, but the business produces ~$18M or so a year in net profit (not necessarily "take home" profits) for its half dozen family member owners? I think that's also a small business, but again, not the sort one typically thinks of when one says "small business."

I'm not looking for you (or anyone) to answer. I'm just point out that in the context of this thread, what constitutes "regular folks," like "small business," is a qualitative thing more so than it is a quantitative one. I think one has to use a reasonable degree of reasonable judgment in evaluating what those terms mean.

• Guy #1 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a solidly upper income family
  • Went to boarding school or "posh" day school
  • Went to an elite college and graduate school
  • Is a business principal (partner in a firm; senior exec or higher in a $1B+ corporation, etc.); $800K/year salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Is well known among his peers in his professional and has a wide social circle comprised of lots of folks who've met him, but who largely know him by reputation; nobody outside business or social circle would know him or recognize his name.
  • Dwells on the fringes of local and national political power, and has some access to it, is well known socially by a few folks having political power (neighbors, fellow club members, or something roughly of that nature), but has no political capital of his own.
• Guy #2 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a middle income family
  • Went to school (not boarding, not "posh" day school, maybe or maybe not private) and did well
  • Went to college, maybe or maybe not grad school
  • Works as a mid level manager (any size company) or owns a "mom & pop ish" business; $250K/year household salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Well known among his local business peers and has a small social circle consisting of folks he's met and with whom he's developed close friendships and acquaintanceships
  • Has met people with local or national political power, but isn't known by them and doesn't know them either (neither is likely to be on the guest list at an event hosted by the other); has no political capital of his own.

Now in my mind, both those guys are "regular guys." I get why Guy #1 might be a Republican, because though he's a "regular guy," financially he's far from it. Guy #2, though not remotely struggling economically (based on what's given above), there's little that makes me see intrinsically why he might be a Republican. I realize that either guy need not necessarily be Republican or Democrat.

What makes Guy #1 more understandably to me Republican is that his fortunes are far more closely linked to big business and the risk aversion concomitant with that. Guy #1 doesn't depend directly on the fortunes of large quantities of individuals for his own livelihood. Guy #2 on the other had, particularly if he's a business owner as described, probably does depend directly on lots of individuals for his livelihood.

I know there are going to all sorts of specifics and details that aren't stated above, myriad vagaries and exceptions to the outline I've tried to present, but you seem reasonable enough that you'll get the big picture of what I'm driving at and address it at that level. Obviously this thread's tone isn't about specific individuals and their circumstance.


Green:
I guess that's one way to portray the two parties. I think most folks -- liberal, conservative, in between -- want the government to stay out of their lives, and I think most folks want the governments to solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals.

I'm an independent, and I want my roads paved, my trash picked up, my taxes to leave me with enough money to enjoy my life, my airports and country safe, and the freedom to safely travel the globe. I don't want to have people starving or homeless for any reason in the U.S. I want to feel confident that Earth (environmentally) will not substantively change between now and 200 years from now. I want to see the day when race, sexual orientation, religion and gender are genuinely irrelevant outside of their immediate individual existence, and known/believed to be so, by the overwhelming majority of majority and minority of social identity group members. I think the governments need to perform or ensure some of those things; they need merely to catalyze and support others.

Well we agree on the small direct impact presidents have economically, although there are times they do impact things indirectly, regulatory regimes, tax policy, etc.

As far as defining small business I believe the govt would use the 500 employee threshold. Your point of comparing say a financial firm to others is well taken, however being in manufacturing the 500 threshold works. Not that 500 employees is particularly small but in comparison to the GMs of the world you could make the argument.

In regards to your two examples, I do believe it depends on your field. In the case of #2 the fact that he depends on many individuals, namely employees, is where the problems begin. My father, a former business owner, often stated only half jokingly, that the worst thing you can do in this country is to hire some one. The moment you do you open yourself up to hundreds local govt bureaucrats, thousands of county and state bureaucrats, tens of thousands of federal bureaucrats and millions of lawyers. Many who see you as nothing more than prey or a revenue stream. That may sound a bit flippant but I mean it sincerely.

In my business I have open contracts with 3 separate former govt officials. One to keep my apprised of new safety and health regs, one for employment regs and one for healthcare regs. Add to that accounting professionals and of course legal representation. With the exception of legal these expenditures are there for one reason, to protect me from the govt. And when I say govt I mean local, county, state, fed, interstate regional, intrastate state regional, it just never ends and continues to grow perpetually.

This is what leads #2 to vote repub. While I know the repubs aren't truly for smaller less intrusive govt the dems are for larger govt on steroids. The repubs generally just plain "get it" more than the dems. I don't feel like public enemy number one with the repubs with the dems I'm convinced they plain and simply hate me.

Well with the danger of rambling too long I'll give you my personal rant of how govt drives me crazy.

My pet peeve is OSHA. Now I'm a safety freak and I have an excellent safety record. In the last 6 or so years I've been a party to two inspections, one at my firm another as a safety consultant. In the instance of my shop the inspector was a 23 year old cute girl that I know for a fact graduated from college a year earlier with a degree in English. The other inspector openly stated that 9 months earlier she was working behind the counter of a post office. In the case of the English major she was reviewing the operation and maintenance of heavy equipment with men that had been operating and maintaining that very equipment for longer than she has been alive, literally. In both cases a year earlier neither would have known an hydraulic power press from a trout.

Now they right us up and we end up paying former govt officials and lawyers to go to OSHA and prove to them that their inspectors haven't the vaguest idea of what they're doing. In both cases we pretty much prevailed. Our reward for prevailing? 10s of thousands of dollars in bills. And absolutely no improvement in safety what so ever.

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up.

Interesting thoughts. I understand how you have come to present the concepts and actions as you have. I don't necessarily concur with all of it, but with some of it I do.

• I don't have the same disdain you do for OSHA requirements.
• I don't see the attorneys, accountants, and HR professionals my firm or my family business keep on staff as being there solely "to protect us from the government," but I recognize that ensuring we comply with gov't regulations is part of what they do.
  • Accountants and tax attorneys: Even though I am a CPA, I have long believed that one of the most easily achieved ways to get rid of a lot of business cost is for local, state and federal governments to require corporations to file and pay income taxes using the exact same audited financial statements they produce and issue to actual and prospective shareholders and investors. That is to say,
    1. government defines graduated tax rates or a single corporate tax rate
    2. corporations multiply that rate either by EBIT, EBITDA, or by net income...someone can quibble and fight over which one, but so long as one gets picked and everyone uses it, fine.
    3. corporations write the check, send it in, and that's it.

I realize that's not the biggest savings that might be obtained, but when one considers the man hours that go into income tax compliance and return preparation, it's still a meaningful savings, no matter what size the entity. I'm fine with non-public corporations using the same approach, but I don't want to require it because those entities aren't necessarily required to annually produce audited financial statements whereas public corporations are. If non C-corps want to use my proposed methodology, by all means, they can, but they'd have to pay for financial audit. (Might there be some nits to pick about procedural and other details like "what if the auditor doesn't give a "fairly presents in all material respects" so-called "clean" opinion" and so on? Yes, of course, but at this level of discussion, there's no need to go down that road.)

I understand what impact that idea will have on the tax accounting and tax law industry in the U.S. I'm okay with that. And I say that as someone who in one instance managed a tax strategy/minimization project that over a year and a half generated ~$20M in fees for my firm and that resulted in my client realizing one time $60M tax/cash savings and ~$25M/year after that. That project had nothing to with income taxes, but because it didn't, it illustrates the value accountants and attorneys have that goes well beyond protecting one from government regulators.​

BTW, I don't think your/your dad's stance is flippant. I think it's cynical. Cynicism isn't something I see as good or bad; it is what it is, and my saying that of his/your remarks is an observation, not a judgment. I have my moments of cynicism at times. Occasionally my rancor rolls into moments of mild misanthropy.


Blue:
Call me crazy, but I have to wonder about the sagacity of assigning such industry inexperienced individuals to a lead role on something as complex and potentially subjective as an OSHA compliance investigation of a business having more safety risk than "white collar" office, such as that of a law firm or the management offices of a manufacturer. I don't think OSHA rules are all that hard to understand on a rule-by-rule basis, but there are a ton of them, but I do think experience plays a key role in being competent in that job.

Interestingly, I don't know if my firm has ever been subject to an OSHA inspection. (My family's business has, but part of that business is construction, so no surprise there.) Even though I'm high up the "food chain" that still wouldn't be something I'd learn of other that by just being onsite when it happens; facilities management isn't within my scope of responsibilities. (And I'm thrilled it's not. LOL) I realize that in the firm's offices one can fall and hurt oneself, but mostly the worst thing likely to happen are paper cuts. LOL Now that nearly everything is electronic, however, even that is rare.


Red:
Yes, well, that's why in my firm and in my family business those results don't flow down that far. LOL I just want folks at that level to answer honestly and accurately when the investigators come asking questions. I'm not interested in what they think about the investigation, and I'm not asking for their opinions on those kinds of things, and they need not volunteer them for they will fall on deaf ears. That's my cynicism and flippancy. LOL

 

[oldsoul]

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up

As "one of the guys out in the shop", so to speak, I have to say: "Well put." Generally speaking, these OSHA, MSHA, DOT and various other "inspectors" have the right idea in their heart (ie: they want to help us be safer and go home in one piece), so I have no real problem with them, they are just "doing their job". It's the people above them, that have never seen the under-side of a comercial truck, have never racked their knuckles trying to loosen a bolt, never seen (let alone used) a grease gun, and wouldn't know a chipping hammer from a dead-blow hammer. However, these are the people that say we are "doing it wrong". In fact, I have a client, a global company, that has a printout of a typical industrial site with the words, "I have no idea how to do your job, but my checklist says you are doing it wrong." This is the problem with these angencies, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Case in point: I am a comercial truck driver for a huge global corporation. When I get "pulled over" for a roadside inspection I realize and accept that the officer is doing their job, and has my safety, as well as other motorists', in mind. No problem there. My problem comes in when one takes into account other drivers. Not all that long ago, I was getting inpected, when along came another motorist. Their vehicle had body parts flailing about in the wind, little if anything in the way of a muffler, and one tail light out. Any one of these would be a "primary" violation for me, promting an immediate reaction from any officer. For the other motorist, not a problem, if they where pulled over for speeding, they may, or may not, get "fix-it" tickets for the other items. I would pay a fine, as the driver, my company would pay a fine, as the owner, and then the items would need to be fixed before setting out on future trips/days.
How does this make sense? I understand that I, as a comercial truck driver, need to ensure the safety of my vehicle, no problem. What about the other vehicle? Are the same things less dangerous because the vehicle is smaller? No, they are just as dangerous, but there is less money to be made, per stop, for non-comercial vehicles. And there enlies the real issue. Money, these angencies need to "take-in" enough money, via fines and violations, to justify their existence. That is why the "big boys" get inspected far more than the "little guys".
To the point of the thread, that is one contributing factor to the concept that many people, blue collar or not, want the govt. to "get out of the way". Do your inspections, but do them based on how long since the last inspection, and how many "unsafe" practices/policies/situations where found. We all realize that govt. has to be there, and they have to spend money. What many of us don't undertand is why they have to be so focused on finacially justifying their existence. Inspect us, give us your findings, then go do the same for our neighbor, not just "the next big fish down the road".

 

[320 Years of History]

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up

As "one of the guys out in the shop", so to speak, I have to say: "Well put." Generally speaking, these OSHA, MSHA, DOT and various other "inspectors" have the right idea in their heart (ie: they want to help us be safer and go home in one piece), so I have no real problem with them, they are just "doing their job". It's the people above them, that have never seen the under-side of a comercial truck, have never racked their knuckles trying to loosen a bolt, never seen (let alone used) a grease gun, and wouldn't know a chipping hammer from a dead-blow hammer. However, these are the people that say we are "doing it wrong". In fact, I have a client, a global company, that has a printout of a typical industrial site with the words, "I have no idea how to do your job, but my checklist says you are doing it wrong." This is the problem with these angencies, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Case in point: I am a comercial truck driver for a huge global corporation. When I get "pulled over" for a roadside inspection I realize and accept that the officer is doing their job, and has my safety, as well as other motorists', in mind. No problem there. My problem comes in when one takes into account other drivers. Not all that long ago, I was getting inpected, when along came another motorist. Their vehicle had body parts flailing about in the wind, little if anything in the way of a muffler, and one tail light out. Any one of these would be a "primary" violation for me, promting an immediate reaction from any officer. For the other motorist, not a problem, if they where pulled over for speeding, they may, or may not, get "fix-it" tickets for the other items. I would pay a fine, as the driver, my company would pay a fine, as the owner, and then the items would need to be fixed before setting out on future trips/days.
How does this make sense? I understand that I, as a comercial truck driver, need to ensure the safety of my vehicle, no problem. What about the other vehicle? Are the same things less dangerous because the vehicle is smaller? No, they are just as dangerous, but there is less money to be made, per stop, for non-comercial vehicles. And there enlies the real issue. Money, these angencies need to "take-in" enough money, via fines and violations, to justify their existence. That is why the "big boys" get inspected far more than the "little guys".
To the point of the thread, that is one contributing factor to the concept that many people, blue collar or not, want the govt. to "get out of the way". Do your inspections, but do them based on how long since the last inspection, and how many "unsafe" practices/policies/situations where found. We all realize that govt. has to be there, and they have to spend money. What many of us don't undertand is why they have to be so focused on finacially justifying their existence. Inspect us, give us your findings, then go do the same for our neighbor, not just "the next big fish down the road".

Anecdotally, absolutely, I get the point you've made.

What you've done, however, is set up a comparison, a seemingly reasonable one to introduce, but nonetheless a comparison. In your scenario above are the other vehicles also commercial vehicles? I don't know and you didn't say. Do those vehicles spend the comparatively/roughly same amount of time on the road as do the ones in your firm's fleet? I don't know and you didn't say. Do the vehicles you've mentioned, by there mere existence on the road (assume for this they are all in perfect operating condition), present comparable risk of harm to other drivers or property owners were "something" to awry with both? Do they, for example, in comparable measure block others view of the road? If they were to collide with another object or vehicle, for example, might one or the other inherently pose a greater risk of harm to "whatever or whomever?"

The point of the questions is to determine whether there truly is comparability with the things you've compared. I can't rationally assume what be the answers to those questions. I can give the benefit of the doubt, but even doing so, insofar as you didn't address those factors, I don't know what context underpins your remarks. I'm not suggesting you don't know what you're talking about. I'm saying you've left out enough detail that I don't fully understand the nature and extent of what you're describing. I'm saying I live in D.C. and my personal vehicles have to pass biennial inspections, but Maryland doesn't require recurring inspections and Virginia requires an annual inspection. I truly don't know what the inspection requirements are for my family's company trucks.

That out of the way....


Red:
Therein lies what I see as a large part of many problems. Money provides a convenient means of measurement for many things individuals, businesses, NGOs and governments want to justify. It's relatively easy to calculate monetary gains and losses and it's basically objective. However, not everything is effectively justifiable in terms of immediately seen financial flows. Regulatory compliance activity is one such thing that doesn't justify well on the basis of fines/fees collected.

For example, let's say that very few commercial truck owners on their own allowed unsafe (whatever one wants that to mean) vehicles on the road. Does that mean safety regulations aren't necessary? If regulations are necessary, they need to be enforced. Enforcement can be either passive or active, or some combination of the two. Either modality can be effective, but citizens' inherent extent of compliance is going to indicate which mode is best to use. We can't know what the extent of inherent compliance is unless we go looking to find out. Is it going to be better to wait for a catastrophe to happen and then handle the matter in a reactive mode rather than attempting to proactively catch potential safety hazards before they do harm?

I don't know the answer in your specific trucking safety example, but I do know that no matter what it be, counting up the fines/feel collected isn't going to tell me which mode is most effective re: general public safety and which is most efficient re: the use of tax revenue. Nor will monies collected tell us what the right balance is between effectiveness and efficiency.

 

[sakinago]

When did so-called "regular folks" head in droves to the Republican Party? And why?

Granny says is `cause Obama an' his Democrat gang...

... is turnin' dis country...

... into one big poor house.

STRAWMAN

 

[baileyn45]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Personally I find tracking economic performance to presidents is nonsensical. There are so many variables at play and more often than not any policies enacted do not work overnight.

As to what drives "regular" folks to the reps, I agree with other posters that it depends on your definition of "regular". From my own experience I don't see a lot of blue collar workers in those ranks. At the same time I know very few small business owners that are not in those ranks. I would also add the vast majority of the self employed. I believe it's a different outlook, one side looks to govt for all solutions the other just wants the govt to get out of the way.

Red:
I think that's a fair remark, one that goes directly to heart of question #1 that I asked. If one recognizes the miniscularity of impact a President has on national economic performance, why bring it up as being something that's dissatisfying about, wrong with, disappointing about a candidate's proposed economic platform or an existing President's policies?

Blue:
Perhaps it does. Perhaps my definition is less well conceived than I would have liked it be. "Regular folks" is certainly a term that's difficult to define; so is "small business," if you ask me. I was asked to define the term and I did because I don't normally duck or sidestep questions. I didn't want to answer it because I know it's the sort of question that's nothing but a hornet's nest the instant I do answer it. Strategic error on my part for using that term? Probably, but it is what it is; I did it, so I have to live with it.

For example, re: "small business," what would you call a firm that has 125 - 150 employees and that is privately owned? I suspect most folks would call that a small business. I would. Upon finding out that business is an investment advisory firm with over $18B in assets under management, would they still call it a small business? I probably still would, but I'd know that it's not the type of company one generally has in mind when one says "small business." What about a business having ~400 employees, nearly all of whom, save for dozen or so, are essentially blue collar laborers, but the business produces ~$18M or so a year in net profit (not necessarily "take home" profits) for its half dozen family member owners? I think that's also a small business, but again, not the sort one typically thinks of when one says "small business."

I'm not looking for you (or anyone) to answer. I'm just point out that in the context of this thread, what constitutes "regular folks," like "small business," is a qualitative thing more so than it is a quantitative one. I think one has to use a reasonable degree of reasonable judgment in evaluating what those terms mean.

• Guy #1 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a solidly upper income family
  • Went to boarding school or "posh" day school
  • Went to an elite college and graduate school
  • Is a business principal (partner in a firm; senior exec or higher in a $1B+ corporation, etc.); $800K/year salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Is well known among his peers in his professional and has a wide social circle comprised of lots of folks who've met him, but who largely know him by reputation; nobody outside business or social circle would know him or recognize his name.
  • Dwells on the fringes of local and national political power, and has some access to it, is well known socially by a few folks having political power (neighbors, fellow club members, or something roughly of that nature), but has no political capital of his own.
• Guy #2 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a middle income family
  • Went to school (not boarding, not "posh" day school, maybe or maybe not private) and did well
  • Went to college, maybe or maybe not grad school
  • Works as a mid level manager (any size company) or owns a "mom & pop ish" business; $250K/year household salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Well known among his local business peers and has a small social circle consisting of folks he's met and with whom he's developed close friendships and acquaintanceships
  • Has met people with local or national political power, but isn't known by them and doesn't know them either (neither is likely to be on the guest list at an event hosted by the other); has no political capital of his own.

Now in my mind, both those guys are "regular guys." I get why Guy #1 might be a Republican, because though he's a "regular guy," financially he's far from it. Guy #2, though not remotely struggling economically (based on what's given above), there's little that makes me see intrinsically why he might be a Republican. I realize that either guy need not necessarily be Republican or Democrat.

What makes Guy #1 more understandably to me Republican is that his fortunes are far more closely linked to big business and the risk aversion concomitant with that. Guy #1 doesn't depend directly on the fortunes of large quantities of individuals for his own livelihood. Guy #2 on the other had, particularly if he's a business owner as described, probably does depend directly on lots of individuals for his livelihood.

I know there are going to all sorts of specifics and details that aren't stated above, myriad vagaries and exceptions to the outline I've tried to present, but you seem reasonable enough that you'll get the big picture of what I'm driving at and address it at that level. Obviously this thread's tone isn't about specific individuals and their circumstance.


Green:
I guess that's one way to portray the two parties. I think most folks -- liberal, conservative, in between -- want the government to stay out of their lives, and I think most folks want the governments to solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals.

I'm an independent, and I want my roads paved, my trash picked up, my taxes to leave me with enough money to enjoy my life, my airports and country safe, and the freedom to safely travel the globe. I don't want to have people starving or homeless for any reason in the U.S. I want to feel confident that Earth (environmentally) will not substantively change between now and 200 years from now. I want to see the day when race, sexual orientation, religion and gender are genuinely irrelevant outside of their immediate individual existence, and known/believed to be so, by the overwhelming majority of majority and minority of social identity group members. I think the governments need to perform or ensure some of those things; they need merely to catalyze and support others.

Well we agree on the small direct impact presidents have economically, although there are times they do impact things indirectly, regulatory regimes, tax policy, etc.

As far as defining small business I believe the govt would use the 500 employee threshold. Your point of comparing say a financial firm to others is well taken, however being in manufacturing the 500 threshold works. Not that 500 employees is particularly small but in comparison to the GMs of the world you could make the argument.

In regards to your two examples, I do believe it depends on your field. In the case of #2 the fact that he depends on many individuals, namely employees, is where the problems begin. My father, a former business owner, often stated only half jokingly, that the worst thing you can do in this country is to hire some one. The moment you do you open yourself up to hundreds local govt bureaucrats, thousands of county and state bureaucrats, tens of thousands of federal bureaucrats and millions of lawyers. Many who see you as nothing more than prey or a revenue stream. That may sound a bit flippant but I mean it sincerely.

In my business I have open contracts with 3 separate former govt officials. One to keep my apprised of new safety and health regs, one for employment regs and one for healthcare regs. Add to that accounting professionals and of course legal representation. With the exception of legal these expenditures are there for one reason, to protect me from the govt. And when I say govt I mean local, county, state, fed, interstate regional, intrastate state regional, it just never ends and continues to grow perpetually.

This is what leads #2 to vote repub. While I know the repubs aren't truly for smaller less intrusive govt the dems are for larger govt on steroids. The repubs generally just plain "get it" more than the dems. I don't feel like public enemy number one with the repubs with the dems I'm convinced they plain and simply hate me.

Well with the danger of rambling too long I'll give you my personal rant of how govt drives me crazy.

My pet peeve is OSHA. Now I'm a safety freak and I have an excellent safety record. In the last 6 or so years I've been a party to two inspections, one at my firm another as a safety consultant. In the instance of my shop the inspector was a 23 year old cute girl that I know for a fact graduated from college a year earlier with a degree in English. The other inspector openly stated that 9 months earlier she was working behind the counter of a post office. In the case of the English major she was reviewing the operation and maintenance of heavy equipment with men that had been operating and maintaining that very equipment for longer than she has been alive, literally. In both cases a year earlier neither would have known an hydraulic power press from a trout.

Now they right us up and we end up paying former govt officials and lawyers to go to OSHA and prove to them that their inspectors haven't the vaguest idea of what they're doing. In both cases we pretty much prevailed. Our reward for prevailing? 10s of thousands of dollars in bills. And absolutely no improvement in safety what so ever.

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up.

Interesting thoughts. I understand how you have come to present the concepts and actions as you have. I don't necessarily concur with all of it, but with some of it I do.

• I don't have the same disdain you do for OSHA requirements.
• I don't see the attorneys, accountants, and HR professionals my firm or my family business keep on staff as being there solely "to protect us from the government," but I recognize that ensuring we comply with gov't regulations is part of what they do.
  • Accountants and tax attorneys: Even though I am a CPA, I have long believed that one of the most easily achieved ways to get rid of a lot of business cost is for local, state and federal governments to require corporations to file and pay income taxes using the exact same audited financial statements they produce and issue to actual and prospective shareholders and investors. That is to say,
    1. government defines graduated tax rates or a single corporate tax rate
    2. corporations multiply that rate either by EBIT, EBITDA, or by net income...someone can quibble and fight over which one, but so long as one gets picked and everyone uses it, fine.
    3. corporations write the check, send it in, and that's it.

I realize that's not the biggest savings that might be obtained, but when one considers the man hours that go into income tax compliance and return preparation, it's still a meaningful savings, no matter what size the entity. I'm fine with non-public corporations using the same approach, but I don't want to require it because those entities aren't necessarily required to annually produce audited financial statements whereas public corporations are. If non C-corps want to use my proposed methodology, by all means, they can, but they'd have to pay for financial audit. (Might there be some nits to pick about procedural and other details like "what if the auditor doesn't give a "fairly presents in all material respects" so-called "clean" opinion" and so on? Yes, of course, but at this level of discussion, there's no need to go down that road.)

I understand what impact that idea will have on the tax accounting and tax law industry in the U.S. I'm okay with that. And I say that as someone who in one instance managed a tax strategy/minimization project that over a year and a half generated ~$20M in fees for my firm and that resulted in my client realizing one time $60M tax/cash savings and ~$25M/year after that. That project had nothing to with income taxes, but because it didn't, it illustrates the value accountants and attorneys have that goes well beyond protecting one from government regulators.​

BTW, I don't think your/your dad's stance is flippant. I think it's cynical. Cynicism isn't something I see as good or bad; it is what it is, and my saying that of his/your remarks is an observation, not a judgment. I have my moments of cynicism at times. Occasionally my rancor rolls into moments of mild misanthropy.


Blue:
Call me crazy, but I have to wonder about the sagacity of assigning such industry inexperienced individuals to a lead role on something as complex and potentially subjective as an OSHA compliance investigation of a business having more safety risk than "white collar" office, such as that of a law firm or the management offices of a manufacturer. I don't think OSHA rules are all that hard to understand on a rule-by-rule basis, but there are a ton of them, but I do think experience plays a key role in being competent in that job.

Interestingly, I don't know if my firm has ever been subject to an OSHA inspection. (My family's business has, but part of that business is construction, so no surprise there.) Even though I'm high up the "food chain" that still wouldn't be something I'd learn of other that by just being onsite when it happens; facilities management isn't within my scope of responsibilities. (And I'm thrilled it's not. LOL) I realize that in the firm's offices one can fall and hurt oneself, but mostly the worst thing likely to happen are paper cuts. LOL Now that nearly everything is electronic, however, even that is rare.


Red:
Yes, well, that's why in my firm and in my family business those results don't flow down that far. LOL I just want folks at that level to answer honestly and accurately when the investigators come asking questions. I'm not interested in what they think about the investigation, and I'm not asking for their opinions on those kinds of things, and they need not volunteer them for they will fall on deaf ears. That's my cynicism and flippancy. LOL

On the subject of tax policy I believe what we need is just plain simplification. I've often thought we're probably the only country in the world that has an entire industry built around the fact that our tax policy is a joke. It shouldn't be that difficult. In a truly small business such as my own, the benefits of finding exemptions, etc never outweigh the costs and time of preparation.

In reference to my "running joke" about OSHA, the guys in the shop are the very people that have to implement the "fixes" prescribed by the Govt. I can't tell you how many times they come into my office and say that the "fixes" are impossible and just make no sense.

Not to harp on OSHA(I'm accused of it often and probably rightfully so) but I'll give you another take.

For many years I corresponded with a gentleman in Germany that I "met" on another forum. We argued a little and compared notes often. The first time I brought up govt health and safety issues he said "oh you mean Hans". I responded "huh"? Comparing notes was telling. He had one govt official that stopped in regularly to help address concerns. He was a veteran of the industry, knew the company, the personnel, the equipment, conducted training, conducted inspections, arranged equipment purchases and swaps between businesses. In short he helped with safety.

Now compare that to what I deal with. I have some one with no knowledge of the industry, the company, the equipment, the personnel and could never train any one involved. They show up out of the blue take notes for a week and half, leave and 4 months later I get a bill in the mail. At the end of the day it's an exercise in bureaucracy nothing more. This country just seems to have an ingrained adversarial relationship between govt and business. Other govts around the world seek to help industry, ours seems more intent on "busting" us.

Oh, and my father isn't really a cynic, just a smart ass.

 

[320 Years of History]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

Personally I find tracking economic performance to presidents is nonsensical. There are so many variables at play and more often than not any policies enacted do not work overnight.

As to what drives "regular" folks to the reps, I agree with other posters that it depends on your definition of "regular". From my own experience I don't see a lot of blue collar workers in those ranks. At the same time I know very few small business owners that are not in those ranks. I would also add the vast majority of the self employed. I believe it's a different outlook, one side looks to govt for all solutions the other just wants the govt to get out of the way.

Red:
I think that's a fair remark, one that goes directly to heart of question #1 that I asked. If one recognizes the miniscularity of impact a President has on national economic performance, why bring it up as being something that's dissatisfying about, wrong with, disappointing about a candidate's proposed economic platform or an existing President's policies?

Blue:
Perhaps it does. Perhaps my definition is less well conceived than I would have liked it be. "Regular folks" is certainly a term that's difficult to define; so is "small business," if you ask me. I was asked to define the term and I did because I don't normally duck or sidestep questions. I didn't want to answer it because I know it's the sort of question that's nothing but a hornet's nest the instant I do answer it. Strategic error on my part for using that term? Probably, but it is what it is; I did it, so I have to live with it.

For example, re: "small business," what would you call a firm that has 125 - 150 employees and that is privately owned? I suspect most folks would call that a small business. I would. Upon finding out that business is an investment advisory firm with over $18B in assets under management, would they still call it a small business? I probably still would, but I'd know that it's not the type of company one generally has in mind when one says "small business." What about a business having ~400 employees, nearly all of whom, save for dozen or so, are essentially blue collar laborers, but the business produces ~$18M or so a year in net profit (not necessarily "take home" profits) for its half dozen family member owners? I think that's also a small business, but again, not the sort one typically thinks of when one says "small business."

I'm not looking for you (or anyone) to answer. I'm just point out that in the context of this thread, what constitutes "regular folks," like "small business," is a qualitative thing more so than it is a quantitative one. I think one has to use a reasonable degree of reasonable judgment in evaluating what those terms mean.

• Guy #1 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a solidly upper income family
  • Went to boarding school or "posh" day school
  • Went to an elite college and graduate school
  • Is a business principal (partner in a firm; senior exec or higher in a $1B+ corporation, etc.); $800K/year salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Is well known among his peers in his professional and has a wide social circle comprised of lots of folks who've met him, but who largely know him by reputation; nobody outside business or social circle would know him or recognize his name.
  • Dwells on the fringes of local and national political power, and has some access to it, is well known socially by a few folks having political power (neighbors, fellow club members, or something roughly of that nature), but has no political capital of his own.
• Guy #2 -- 50 years old, married, two kids, lives in a large metropolitan city or suburb
  • Born into a middle income family
  • Went to school (not boarding, not "posh" day school, maybe or maybe not private) and did well
  • Went to college, maybe or maybe not grad school
  • Works as a mid level manager (any size company) or owns a "mom & pop ish" business; $250K/year household salary/income (not including spouse's earnings, investments, directorships, passive income, etc.)
  • Well known among his local business peers and has a small social circle consisting of folks he's met and with whom he's developed close friendships and acquaintanceships
  • Has met people with local or national political power, but isn't known by them and doesn't know them either (neither is likely to be on the guest list at an event hosted by the other); has no political capital of his own.

Now in my mind, both those guys are "regular guys." I get why Guy #1 might be a Republican, because though he's a "regular guy," financially he's far from it. Guy #2, though not remotely struggling economically (based on what's given above), there's little that makes me see intrinsically why he might be a Republican. I realize that either guy need not necessarily be Republican or Democrat.

What makes Guy #1 more understandably to me Republican is that his fortunes are far more closely linked to big business and the risk aversion concomitant with that. Guy #1 doesn't depend directly on the fortunes of large quantities of individuals for his own livelihood. Guy #2 on the other had, particularly if he's a business owner as described, probably does depend directly on lots of individuals for his livelihood.

I know there are going to all sorts of specifics and details that aren't stated above, myriad vagaries and exceptions to the outline I've tried to present, but you seem reasonable enough that you'll get the big picture of what I'm driving at and address it at that level. Obviously this thread's tone isn't about specific individuals and their circumstance.


Green:
I guess that's one way to portray the two parties. I think most folks -- liberal, conservative, in between -- want the government to stay out of their lives, and I think most folks want the governments to solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals.

I'm an independent, and I want my roads paved, my trash picked up, my taxes to leave me with enough money to enjoy my life, my airports and country safe, and the freedom to safely travel the globe. I don't want to have people starving or homeless for any reason in the U.S. I want to feel confident that Earth (environmentally) will not substantively change between now and 200 years from now. I want to see the day when race, sexual orientation, religion and gender are genuinely irrelevant outside of their immediate individual existence, and known/believed to be so, by the overwhelming majority of majority and minority of social identity group members. I think the governments need to perform or ensure some of those things; they need merely to catalyze and support others.

Well we agree on the small direct impact presidents have economically, although there are times they do impact things indirectly, regulatory regimes, tax policy, etc.

As far as defining small business I believe the govt would use the 500 employee threshold. Your point of comparing say a financial firm to others is well taken, however being in manufacturing the 500 threshold works. Not that 500 employees is particularly small but in comparison to the GMs of the world you could make the argument.

In regards to your two examples, I do believe it depends on your field. In the case of #2 the fact that he depends on many individuals, namely employees, is where the problems begin. My father, a former business owner, often stated only half jokingly, that the worst thing you can do in this country is to hire some one. The moment you do you open yourself up to hundreds local govt bureaucrats, thousands of county and state bureaucrats, tens of thousands of federal bureaucrats and millions of lawyers. Many who see you as nothing more than prey or a revenue stream. That may sound a bit flippant but I mean it sincerely.

In my business I have open contracts with 3 separate former govt officials. One to keep my apprised of new safety and health regs, one for employment regs and one for healthcare regs. Add to that accounting professionals and of course legal representation. With the exception of legal these expenditures are there for one reason, to protect me from the govt. And when I say govt I mean local, county, state, fed, interstate regional, intrastate state regional, it just never ends and continues to grow perpetually.

This is what leads #2 to vote repub. While I know the repubs aren't truly for smaller less intrusive govt the dems are for larger govt on steroids. The repubs generally just plain "get it" more than the dems. I don't feel like public enemy number one with the repubs with the dems I'm convinced they plain and simply hate me.

Well with the danger of rambling too long I'll give you my personal rant of how govt drives me crazy.

My pet peeve is OSHA. Now I'm a safety freak and I have an excellent safety record. In the last 6 or so years I've been a party to two inspections, one at my firm another as a safety consultant. In the instance of my shop the inspector was a 23 year old cute girl that I know for a fact graduated from college a year earlier with a degree in English. The other inspector openly stated that 9 months earlier she was working behind the counter of a post office. In the case of the English major she was reviewing the operation and maintenance of heavy equipment with men that had been operating and maintaining that very equipment for longer than she has been alive, literally. In both cases a year earlier neither would have known an hydraulic power press from a trout.

Now they right us up and we end up paying former govt officials and lawyers to go to OSHA and prove to them that their inspectors haven't the vaguest idea of what they're doing. In both cases we pretty much prevailed. Our reward for prevailing? 10s of thousands of dollars in bills. And absolutely no improvement in safety what so ever.

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up.

Interesting thoughts. I understand how you have come to present the concepts and actions as you have. I don't necessarily concur with all of it, but with some of it I do.

• I don't have the same disdain you do for OSHA requirements.
• I don't see the attorneys, accountants, and HR professionals my firm or my family business keep on staff as being there solely "to protect us from the government," but I recognize that ensuring we comply with gov't regulations is part of what they do.
  • Accountants and tax attorneys: Even though I am a CPA, I have long believed that one of the most easily achieved ways to get rid of a lot of business cost is for local, state and federal governments to require corporations to file and pay income taxes using the exact same audited financial statements they produce and issue to actual and prospective shareholders and investors. That is to say,
    1. government defines graduated tax rates or a single corporate tax rate
    2. corporations multiply that rate either by EBIT, EBITDA, or by net income...someone can quibble and fight over which one, but so long as one gets picked and everyone uses it, fine.
    3. corporations write the check, send it in, and that's it.

I realize that's not the biggest savings that might be obtained, but when one considers the man hours that go into income tax compliance and return preparation, it's still a meaningful savings, no matter what size the entity. I'm fine with non-public corporations using the same approach, but I don't want to require it because those entities aren't necessarily required to annually produce audited financial statements whereas public corporations are. If non C-corps want to use my proposed methodology, by all means, they can, but they'd have to pay for financial audit. (Might there be some nits to pick about procedural and other details like "what if the auditor doesn't give a "fairly presents in all material respects" so-called "clean" opinion" and so on? Yes, of course, but at this level of discussion, there's no need to go down that road.)

I understand what impact that idea will have on the tax accounting and tax law industry in the U.S. I'm okay with that. And I say that as someone who in one instance managed a tax strategy/minimization project that over a year and a half generated ~$20M in fees for my firm and that resulted in my client realizing one time $60M tax/cash savings and ~$25M/year after that. That project had nothing to with income taxes, but because it didn't, it illustrates the value accountants and attorneys have that goes well beyond protecting one from government regulators.​

BTW, I don't think your/your dad's stance is flippant. I think it's cynical. Cynicism isn't something I see as good or bad; it is what it is, and my saying that of his/your remarks is an observation, not a judgment. I have my moments of cynicism at times. Occasionally my rancor rolls into moments of mild misanthropy.


Blue:
Call me crazy, but I have to wonder about the sagacity of assigning such industry inexperienced individuals to a lead role on something as complex and potentially subjective as an OSHA compliance investigation of a business having more safety risk than "white collar" office, such as that of a law firm or the management offices of a manufacturer. I don't think OSHA rules are all that hard to understand on a rule-by-rule basis, but there are a ton of them, but I do think experience plays a key role in being competent in that job.

Interestingly, I don't know if my firm has ever been subject to an OSHA inspection. (My family's business has, but part of that business is construction, so no surprise there.) Even though I'm high up the "food chain" that still wouldn't be something I'd learn of other that by just being onsite when it happens; facilities management isn't within my scope of responsibilities. (And I'm thrilled it's not. LOL) I realize that in the firm's offices one can fall and hurt oneself, but mostly the worst thing likely to happen are paper cuts. LOL Now that nearly everything is electronic, however, even that is rare.


Red:
Yes, well, that's why in my firm and in my family business those results don't flow down that far. LOL I just want folks at that level to answer honestly and accurately when the investigators come asking questions. I'm not interested in what they think about the investigation, and I'm not asking for their opinions on those kinds of things, and they need not volunteer them for they will fall on deaf ears. That's my cynicism and flippancy. LOL

On the subject of tax policy I believe what we need is just plain simplification. I've often thought we're probably the only country in the world that has an entire industry built around the fact that our tax policy is a joke. It shouldn't be that difficult. In a truly small business such as my own, the benefits of finding exemptions, etc never outweigh the costs and time of preparation.

In reference to my "running joke" about OSHA, the guys in the shop are the very people that have to implement the "fixes" prescribed by the Govt. I can't tell you how many times they come into my office and say that the "fixes" are impossible and just make no sense.

Not to harp on OSHA(I'm accused of it often and probably rightfully so) but I'll give you another take.

For many years I corresponded with a gentleman in Germany that I "met" on another forum. We argued a little and compared notes often. The first time I brought up govt health and safety issues he said "oh you mean Hans". I responded "huh"? Comparing notes was telling. He had one govt official that stopped in regularly to help address concerns. He was a veteran of the industry, knew the company, the personnel, the equipment, conducted training, conducted inspections, arranged equipment purchases and swaps between businesses. In short he helped with safety.

Now compare that to what I deal with. I have some one with no knowledge of the industry, the company, the equipment, the personnel and could never train any one involved. They show up out of the blue take notes for a week and half, leave and 4 months later I get a bill in the mail. At the end of the day it's an exercise in bureaucracy nothing more. This country just seems to have an ingrained adversarial relationship between govt and business. Other govts around the world seek to help industry, ours seems more intent on "busting" us.

Oh, and my father isn't really a cynic, just a smart ass.

Just between government and business? How about between one part of the government and the other part of the government? Surely you've noticed that our system of government, from the top to the bottom, was contrived to be adversarial? The "politics of no?" The founders intentionally did that, for better or worse, we we've got is by design. It's ostensibly called "check and balances," and to be sure, in that regard it does what it's meant to do. I have to wonder, however, whether in this day and age of rapidly obtainable information and 24-hour news cycles whether some of what our forebears created has outlived its usefulness.

Therein lies a major difference between a parliamentary democracy and ours, a presidential democracy. I have long thought that in this day an age, it's a better overall approach. Our system was certainly the right one when the world was large and things moved comparatively slowly. It was good that big changes too a long time to effect. But now we need big changes and its all but impossible to achieve them. It's hard for huge corporations to implement change even when a CEO has effectively unbridled authority and power; it's nigh impossible for governments to do so where no one person or party has neither that much authority nor power. That's why Presidents get to do essentially "one big thing" at the start of their term and what they don't get done then that is also big, probably won't get done. Only if we are in a state of war might there be an exception to that. (LOL Thank God the U.S. is nearly always at war with someone. LOL)

• https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Scienc...olitical-parties/PolP/SchonfeldCompPols83.pdf
  
• https://apw.polisci.wisc.edu/APW_Papers/holds_wisconsin.pdf
  
• Difference in Democracy & Parliamentary Democracy | The Classroom | Synonym

 

[sakinago]

Some what of a running joke in my industry is how an inspection plays out at a firm of a couple hundred employees. The CEO makes a statement about how he is proud to work with his govt partners to ensure safe working conditions etc. It then goes to middle management who says "oh dear god not this crap again". Finally the guys in the shop are handed the results, chuckle and say "what in the #$#$ is this supposed to be? We don't do that, this is wrong, that is just plain stupid and is going to get some one killed and we haven't the vaguest idea what the rest of it is talking about.". Utterly maddening. And it grows day after day, week after week, month after month. year after year, decade after decade until they win and we give up

As "one of the guys out in the shop", so to speak, I have to say: "Well put." Generally speaking, these OSHA, MSHA, DOT and various other "inspectors" have the right idea in their heart (ie: they want to help us be safer and go home in one piece), so I have no real problem with them, they are just "doing their job". It's the people above them, that have never seen the under-side of a comercial truck, have never racked their knuckles trying to loosen a bolt, never seen (let alone used) a grease gun, and wouldn't know a chipping hammer from a dead-blow hammer. However, these are the people that say we are "doing it wrong". In fact, I have a client, a global company, that has a printout of a typical industrial site with the words, "I have no idea how to do your job, but my checklist says you are doing it wrong." This is the problem with these angencies, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Case in point: I am a comercial truck driver for a huge global corporation. When I get "pulled over" for a roadside inspection I realize and accept that the officer is doing their job, and has my safety, as well as other motorists', in mind. No problem there. My problem comes in when one takes into account other drivers. Not all that long ago, I was getting inpected, when along came another motorist. Their vehicle had body parts flailing about in the wind, little if anything in the way of a muffler, and one tail light out. Any one of these would be a "primary" violation for me, promting an immediate reaction from any officer. For the other motorist, not a problem, if they where pulled over for speeding, they may, or may not, get "fix-it" tickets for the other items. I would pay a fine, as the driver, my company would pay a fine, as the owner, and then the items would need to be fixed before setting out on future trips/days.
How does this make sense? I understand that I, as a comercial truck driver, need to ensure the safety of my vehicle, no problem. What about the other vehicle? Are the same things less dangerous because the vehicle is smaller? No, they are just as dangerous, but there is less money to be made, per stop, for non-comercial vehicles. And there enlies the real issue. Money, these angencies need to "take-in" enough money, via fines and violations, to justify their existence. That is why the "big boys" get inspected far more than the "little guys".
To the point of the thread, that is one contributing factor to the concept that many people, blue collar or not, want the govt. to "get out of the way". Do your inspections, but do them based on how long since the last inspection, and how many "unsafe" practices/policies/situations where found. We all realize that govt. has to be there, and they have to spend money. What many of us don't undertand is why they have to be so focused on finacially justifying their existence. Inspect us, give us your findings, then go do the same for our neighbor, not just "the next big fish down the road".

I don't think the founders designed the constitution around their times, but rather around the pitfalls of humanity. They saw humanity as cyclical, and consistently corruptible. And very easily corruptible by power. Yes our technology, and social norms change, but I don't think humanity necessarily progresses. We do much of the same with what we are capabilities are at the time.