“The grand political fallacy of the age is that the Republicans are the party of wealth, while the Democrats are the party of compassion for the little guy. This is something that has been assumed and repeated so often that it has become a “well-known fact” without any hard evidence being asked for or given. In the 2000 elections, the counties that voted for Bush had a smaller percentage of their population with annual incomes over $100,000 than the counties that voted for Gore. The Bush counties also had a higher percentage of their population earning under $30,000 a year”. –Thomas Sowell, discussing a new book titled, “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies” by Gregory Jackson, in which several liberal myths are debunked
I agree that the generalization Sowell mentions has always been very confusing. I guess regardless of the incomes of the voters, the Republicans are perceived to push policy that benefits the wealthy (anti-capital gains tax, anti-death tax, money making more money) whereas the Democrats are perceived as pushing policy that supports the lower income people (universal healthcare, increasing taxes for upper income people, etc.) Places like Seattle and San Francisco, two of the most affluent and educated parts of the country, vote heavily Democratic. From my experience, i think the majority of liberals here vote based on social/moral issues rather than economic.
I agree, Republicans tend to push free market based solutions and Democrats tend to push government based, and to the average person, especially those with very little to no economic education, the differences may seem to be “anti-poor” and “pro-poor”, but they are nothing of the sort.
In fact, to make a very broad generalization, it has primarily been the countries that follow free market based solutions that have done better, indeed much better, for their poor than countries that have followed a government based solution. Republicans just think the free market has even more to offer.
the average person, especially those with very little to no economic education, the differences may seem to be “anti-poor” and “pro-poor”, but they are nothing of the sort.
I agree with that.
And regarding the final point…
And I agree that in many cases, a free market solution is the best. I think most Democrats would actually agree with that. Based on personal experience, however, I think that there are many failures here compared to countries that put more emphasis on state assistance (and in some cases control) of public services… particularly in education, healthcare, and transportation.
The quality of healthcare here in the USA is among the best but only if you can afford it. In Spain, anybody can go to the doctor and it is either free or for a very small fee in most cases. Elective procedures generally cost but are not nearly as expensive as they are here in the states. The idea that one cannot go to the doctor is a foreign concept. And if you do have money, can you buy into a private healthcare system and get generally better service. The “free” service isn’t always the best but it is there.
As a very poor Latino growing up in the states, I remember doctors as being almost luxury services. Thankfully, due to a heavily subsidized program in my neighborhood, I was able to get regular checkups and treatment at a clinic. If it wasn’t for that I am sure I wouldn’t have seen a doctor as often as I did, and getting sick would have meant a huge financial burden on my parents. Eventually, though, my parents worked their way up and now enjoy top quality private healthcare, but I have to respect the help that was there when it was needed.
The topic of health care is a very complicated one, one that cannot be settled or even nearly settled in the comments section of a post. Suffice it to say that we are in fundamental agreement: both Democrats and Republicans believe in a free market at the core level. The differences now lie in what one considers ’special cases’, areas where Democrats tend to believe that a free market might be too dangerous or inefficient and Republicans don’t.
As far as United States health care goes, for now I just want to say that the United States, while it certainly has alot of good things in health care, definitely has its share of deficiencies. But a universal healthcare system of the type of Europe’s, and certainly Canada’s, is not the way to go. If I had my way in dictating health care policy, I would choose something more along these lines - for more on healthcare go here.
I’ve been meaning to write a long detailed post on how I would structure healthcare, maybe the time to write that is sooner rather than later.
Puro Pedo is all I have to say. Both parties cater to the well to do. And just because a large segment of the “NASCAR” dads vote for Bush doesn’t mean that they are even voting for their economic interests. Explain to me how the tax cuts, cutting of financial aid (even you HP have previously said this was messed up), of not having healthcare..and on and on….benefit those people…Yes the magical powers of the free market will allow them to succeed, right. The reality is that trickle down economics dont stimulate shit for these poeple and they tend to vote often times along cultural issues like abortion, stem cell, the war, gay rights, …which have very little to do with the economy
It would be interesting to see 8 years later when bush leaves office if the conditions have changed at all for the under 30K. Do they have acces to quality health care, better paying jobs, higher standard of living, better schools…etc. But of course it will be the deomcrats fault even though the repubes control both houses and the executive….Just my two cents….Read this article for an excellent analysis of Bush and “the blue collar vote” … And just to disclose, in my opinion the last democrap admin really didbt do much better either for working folk
http://www.alternet.org/story/16885/
The reality is that trickle down economics dont stimulate shit for these poeple
Gerardo, since you seem to think that lower marginal tax cuts have absolutely no effect on lower income households, what is your take on this quote ? Or this? Or this?
Is all of that just a bunch of bull shit and mere coincidence? I can understand a person who says a tax cut could have been better spent somewhere else - I would tend to disagree with that person (though not always), but atleast that person acknowledges that a marginal tax cut has some economic benefit for the poor. But for someone to out and out say that a tax cut has NO benefit for the poor is to be too partisan, IMO.
As far as education goes, I have blogged on a Republican plan that is far more beneficial for poor students than the Democrat alternative, see here. But Democrats seem to be more interested in maintaining the status quo, and in doing so, continuing on the tradition of income inequality and keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Health care has also been briefly discussed here.
I like the idea you linked to about requiring healthcare. It’s not an ideal solution but it is on the right track, I think. Doesn’t Massachusetts have a similar policy? Are you suggesting, however, that people be required to pay $500 a month for healthcare? That seems rather steep. That is more than what I pay for homeowners insurance and car insurance every six months.
It would be nice if we could choose where our taxes go to. I entered what some people describe as the highest tax bracket this year and it disturbs me that so much money of the taxes I will pay will go to military and BS wars. I honestly wouldn’t mind paying so much if I could say “instead of 49% of my taxes going to military spending, have that go towards education, or transportation projects, or science research, or anything else.”
Education is absurdly expensive here. It’s also absurdly undervalued. We have a very high dropout rate in some parts of the country and even with the fact that a chimpanzee could get into a public university here, so many people remain uneducated. I don’t think throwing more money at the school system would help, rather, I think doing things to increase the overall value of the system would be a better benefit. Either that, or require all young people to either learn a trade, serve in the military, or get a university education.
Doesn’t Massachusetts have a similar policy?
Massachusetts health care has many problems of its own, see here, and will most likely result in failure, rather than success.
As far as the deductable goes, remember, that is only a requirement for those who can afford it. Those at or near poverty level can have their deductable picked up by the government. Also, there are the new HSA accounts that can help you pay this deductable tax free.