Recently read a comment that said ” Republicans want to take our country back from the poor. Democrats want to take our country back from poverty.”
I wonder how they reconcile the fact that the percentage of people in poverty has increased dramatically under Obama?
I don’t really understand the concept of Republicans being tied to the ‘wealthy’ and Democrats to the ‘poor’.
Democrat coffers are filled by the same ‘wealthy’ donors as fund the Republicans.
The ‘poor’ don’t provide funds to either party, but they do seem to vote predominately Democrat. I have to believe this is driven either by ‘jealousy’ or the promise of handouts. Neither improves their economic situation. The poor simply become more dependent on the government and wealthy become more wealthy. Note: This disparity has increased under Obama.
It appears that both parties are held hostage by their donors.
Trump has made it very clear that he donates to politicians to gain their cooperation. Anyone with money to give to politicians expects some quid pro quo. And politicians are more than willing to sell their souls.
I think the ineffective resistance of the Republicans to counter Obama’s agenda is driven by their fear of alienating their contributors. It appears that this fear keeps them from a real showdown over government shutdowns.
I believe that is the primary reason the Keystone Pipeline hasn’t been approved even after receiving a positive review by the State Dept. Approval would displease some major Democratic donors. (I’m puzzled that ‘environmentalist are being catered to while unions are displeased. I have to believe that the Democrats are confident of continued union support and unwilling to anger the environmentalists who must represent a very significant donor group.)
Republicans, don’t have the same reliable voter block. Wall Street and Hedge fund managers will simply donate to whoever they think is likely to win. That doesn’t mean they don’t expect favors. They do expect a return on their money but they don’t really care which party is in charge, just as long as their businesses are not adversely affected.
Neither party seems interested in reducing government. They just emphasize different ways for government to grow and interfere with our lives.
Most of the Republican candidates call for reduced government, but then turn around and insist on increased Defense spending. I don’t believe any of the ‘politicians’ will actually work to reduce government with the exception of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. The only candidates I would trust to reduce government would be the non-politicians Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and possibly Donald Trump. (I am very suspect of Trump. He seems to have favored ‘big government’ in the past, on the other hand I feel confident that he could negotiate well with politicians and other governments.)
If we hope to actually reduce poverty, as the Democrats are supposed to support, we must elect a Republican who can effectively lead us to an expansion of the private sector by simplifying and reducing taxes, reducing or eliminating crippling regulations and promoting business.
Attempting to solve the ‘poverty’ problem by taking from the wealthy can not work. As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently said, “socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money”.
The only way to permanently and sustainably solve the poverty or unemployment problem is create an environment favorable to business growth. It is only with private sector growth that we can hope to provide more jobs and with more jobs reduce poverty and income disparity.