The road ahead
Posted by aogThursday, 24 November 2011 at 20:27 TrackBack Ping URL

Nobody doubts why the poor vote for Democrats. They are voting for their benefits. They know that the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy and the traditionally marginalized.

Maybe the rich are just like the poor, and vote their pocket-books too. If you figure that your average Millionaire Next Door owning a couple of small businesses votes for the Republicans, then that leaves the crony capitalists, the green energy promoters, the high-level government administrators, the academic grant recipients, and the trustafarians all voting for the Democrats and bigger government. Otherwise you wouldn’t get to 52 percent voting for Obama.

That makes the Democratic Party the party of the poor and the crony capitalist rich. What does that make the Republican Party? It is at least the party of the middle class. We know that because John McCain won the middle class vote in the middle of an economic meltdown. The middle class stands for limited government and low tax rates, in part on the principle that it cramps the style of class warriors and crony capitalists. That’s because the middle class is nothing if it does not aspire to a better life for itself and its children.

Christopher Cantrill

What high taxes and over regulation does is hollow out the middle class, leaving only the already very rich (who become part of the Aristocracy of Pull), their clients (who live off the largesse of the rulers), and peons, who do what they’re told and expected to produce the wealth for everyone else. As far as I can tell, this is the desired end state for the MAL who think they’ll all be in the ruling class while those bitter clingers end up on the work farms.

This is what President Obama meant when he said he was going to fundamentally transform America.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
billswift Friday, 25 November 2011 at 13:23

The wealthy vote for Democrats for the same reason the poor do. They are anti-work, pro-welfare. It’s just that welfare for wealthy Democrats is called by other names, like University “jobs”.

erp Friday, 25 November 2011 at 14:36

bill, you really are swift … and by university jobs, you surely mean appointments to boards, foundations, government agencies and on and on infinitum.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 25 November 2011 at 14:46


Only to a limited extent. I have seen claims (which I find plausible) that liberal support for the welfare state is based on all the mid-level jobs that it creates, which is why there is so little concern about the actual effects of the welfare on the poor. Don’t think of the elites appointed to boards and other prestigious positions, but the masses of bureaucrats that staff those organizations. I think that’s what Mr. Swift means.

erp Friday, 25 November 2011 at 15:18

aog, I don’t see how welfare creates jobs and certainly not jobs in universities or similar elitist institutions. Federal bureaucracies are make work programs for public service unions and sending out welfare checks is a rather simple straight forward operation. I know I’m missing your point here, but I simply can’t see it.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 25 November 2011 at 17:10


Look at how many people are employed by the Department of Health & Human Services. Think of all the state level organizations, all the private NGOs. That is a lot of staff. If you actually follow the money, you would find that most of it is used up in this way before any actual poor person gets it.

erp Friday, 25 November 2011 at 18:27

Of course, I know that the bureaucracy eats up the funds and leaves very little to trickle down to the poor and downtrodden. That’s why health care was affordable in the good old days before everything was “free.”

What I can’t follow is why the elites at the top of lefty ivory towers would care about it. They despise and disdain the middle class and only use the poor as pawns in their rush to socialist utopia.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 25 November 2011 at 19:19

It’s where the elitists get their masses for crowds and demonstrations, like ODL.

Bret Friday, 25 November 2011 at 20:15


I don’t think the elites despise the middle class nearly as much as they despise those that make more money than they do, especially if the money makers are less schooled and credentialed.

erp Friday, 25 November 2011 at 21:14

Bret, that is the middle class.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 01 December 2011 at 20:54

That’s why health care was affordable in the good old days…

Health care is extremely affordable now, too - if one limits oneself to receiving the same treatments and level of care that was available in the “good old days”.

It’s like people complaining that a family could be supported on one income in the seventies… Just buy a base-model entry-level car and a tiny house, and not only will one’s family be living like it was the seventies, but it can easily be done on one income. Except, of course, today’s $12K Hyundai will be far better than a ‘70s Detroit Iron luxury sedan in every way but cargo space.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 05 December 2011 at 13:47

Yes, I don’t think AVRRA’s point can be made too many times. It’s one of those unnoticed benefits of a free market.

erp Monday, 05 December 2011 at 15:08

Rough, I agree with housing and autos, but healthcare like the 50’s is no longer available. We are forced by law to participate in Medicare and pretty soon we’ll all be forced by law to buy the kind of cars lefties think we should drive while they continue to drive Escalades and remember we were recently told that homeownership isn’t for everybody and it would better for many of us to rent. Wild guess: government owned housing isn’t only for the downtrodden anymore.

I just calculated my husband and my out-of-pocket healthcare costs for the last year: $12,230, not including dental, refraction and eye glasses.


Ain’t what it used to be.

Post a comment