PDA

View Full Version : As Public Sees GOP Moving Right, More Say It Shares Their Values, View of Government



Gingersnap
09-24-2010, 09:58 AM
As Public Sees GOP Moving Right, More Say It Shares Their Values, View of Government, According to Gallup Data

At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Thursday, September 23, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Democrats, meanwhile, have lost ground on these measures.

In a USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,021 American adults conducted Aug. 27-30, respondents were asked whether they believed the Republican Party had “become more conservative, or not” since Barack Obama took office as president. In the same poll, respondents were also asked how well each of the two major parties “represent your values” and “represent your attitude about the role of government.”

Fifty-four percent of Americans told Gallup they believed the GOP had indeed become more conservative since Obama took office, while only 40 percent said they did not believe the Republicans had become more conservative.

At the same time, the Republicans did better than the Democrats on the percentage of Americans who said the party represents their attitude about the role of government and their values.

Fifty-two percent told Gallup the Republican Party represented their attitude about the role of government either “very well” or “moderately well,” while only 44 percent said the Democratic Party represented their attitude about the role of government either “very well” or “moderately well.”

Fifty-six percent, meanwhile, told Gallup the Republican Party represented their values either “very well” or “moderately well,” while only 49 percent said the Democratic Party represented their values either “very well” or “moderately well.”

These results indicate a shift in public perception of the major political parties from four years ago, when the Republicans lost the congressional majority to the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections. These results also resemble the results Gallup got when it asked the same questions in 1994, the year the Republicans won the congressional majority away from the Democrats.

CNS (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75729)

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 11:20 AM
I, too, believe that the sole purpose of the government should be protecting the interests of the wealthy ruling class.

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 11:25 AM
You know it matters what you consider Conservative. Ask a regular middle-of-the-road guy about Bush and he'll say he was extremely conserverative, while asking a Tea Party if Bush was conservative will give you a far different answer.

This is also reflected in the data:


Those who describe themselves as Tea Party "opponents" widely believe the Republican Party has become more conservative, while those who say they are Tea Party "supporters" are closely divided in their views of whether a shift has occurred.


and this


Those who describe themselves as Tea Party "opponents" widely believe the Republican Party has become more conservative, while those who say they are Tea Party "supporters" are closely divided in their views of whether a shift has occurred.

Milly
09-24-2010, 12:21 PM
I, too, believe that the sole purpose of the government should be protecting the interests of the wealthy ruling class.

If you could step outside of your preconceived notions for a minute, you might begin to understand what's actually going on.

Those of my friends who are TEA Partiers do not like the present make-up of the Republican Party, either. Most Republicans are conservative elites who care no more about the average American than the liberal elites do.

The TEA party is an attempt to change all that and elect people who are NOT members of the 'Old Boys' Club' in Washington, all of whom - left or right - are more beholden to the wealthy ruling class than to the voters.

And, yeah, it actually IS a grass-roots movement. :p

FlaGator
09-24-2010, 12:26 PM
I, too, believe that the sole purpose of the government should be protecting the interests of the wealthy ruling class.

If you truly beleive this then you obviously have drunk a huge pitcher of the liberal kool-aid. How does something like tax cuts for everyone protect the interests of the wealthy ruling class?

Arroyo_Doble
09-24-2010, 12:30 PM
If you truly beleive this then you obviously have drunk a huge pitcher of the liberal kool-aid. How does something like tax cuts for everyone protect the interests of the wealthy ruling class?

How is tax cuts for income less that 250K not cuts for everyone?

rjas77
09-24-2010, 12:32 PM
I, too, believe that the sole purpose of the government should be protecting the interests of the wealthy ruling class.

Refresh my memory, 7 of the top 10 wealthiest politicians belong to which party?

FlaGator
09-24-2010, 12:33 PM
How is tax cuts for income less that 250K not cuts for everyone?

What about those who make more that 250k. Why can't they have tax cuts?

Arroyo_Doble
09-24-2010, 12:53 PM
What about those who make more that 250k. Why can't they have tax cuts?

They do get tax cuts.

It is possible we are talking about two different things. I am talking about income taxes and the proposal (rhetorical ... there is no bill to read that I am aware of) by the Obama administration that taxable income under that threshold for a family get tax cuts. If you make more than that, you still get the same tax cuts as those making less.

FlaGator
09-24-2010, 01:12 PM
They do get tax cuts.

It is possible we are talking about two different things. I am talking about income taxes and the proposal (rhetorical ... there is no bill to read that I am aware of) by the Obama administration that taxable income under that threshold for a family get tax cuts. If you make more than that, you still get the same tax cuts as those making less.

Perhaps we are. I'm speaking about all those who call for the extra taxation of the wealthy as a solution for just about everything. I live in a world where I really don't care how much or how little someone makes. Tax everyone at the same rate. Maybe exempt thos making less than $25,000 (or whatever figure seems prudent) but just tax everyone at the exact same rate.

Arroyo_Doble
09-24-2010, 01:29 PM
Perhaps we are. I'm speaking about all those who call for the extra taxation of the wealthy as a solution for just about everything. I live in a world where I really don't care how much or how little someone makes. Tax everyone at the same rate. Maybe exempt thos making less than $25,000 (or whatever figure seems prudent) but just tax everyone at the exact same rate.

I am for a flat tax rate on all income.

FlaGator
09-24-2010, 01:47 PM
I am for a flat tax rate on all income.

I always suspected you were a sensible person :D

It would be the fair thing to do. The current system lives itself wide open for either party to use the tax code for social engineering.

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 03:17 PM
If you could step outside of your preconceived notions for a minute, you might begin to understand what's actually going on.

Those of my friends who are TEA Partiers do not like the present make-up of the Republican Party, either. Most Republicans are conservative elites who care no more about the average American than the liberal elites do.

The TEA party is an attempt to change all that and elect people who are NOT members of the 'Old Boys' Club' in Washington, all of whom - left or right - are more beholden to the wealthy ruling class than to the voters.

And, yeah, it actually IS a grass-roots movement. :p

Don't you find it odd that a populous movement against the elites is heavily funded by millionaires, heavily supported by corporate media, the very people with the power to bend politicians any way they want?

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 03:18 PM
If you truly beleive this then you obviously have drunk a huge pitcher of the liberal kool-aid. How does something like tax cuts for everyone protect the interests of the wealthy ruling class?

If the majority of the tax cuts go to the top 1-5% , rather than being used for programs that benefit the bottom 90%.

I'd take every child in America getting quality healthcare over a tax cuts that results in $150 at the end of the year for me and other middle or working class people, and for the highest tax bracket is more like $26 million tax cut at the end of the year.

Everyone gets a tax cut (but the rich get the most)? Or every child gets quality healthcare?

Ree
09-24-2010, 03:23 PM
Don't you find it odd that a populous movement against the elites is heavily funded by millionaires, heavily supported by corporate media, the very people with the power to bend politicians any way they want?
If you're talkin about the Tea Party, then your head is so far up your ass you'll never see daylight. If ya really believe all the stupid shit ya spout then i really feel sorry for ya...

Milly
09-24-2010, 03:27 PM
Don't you find it odd that a populous movement against the elites is heavily funded by millionaires, heavily supported by corporate media, the very people with the power to bend politicians any way they want?

There are groups like Freedom Works that have hitched a ride - so to speak - on the TEA Party, but I have yet to see any valid evidence that the TEA Party is funded by them. All the people I know who went to the rally on the mall paid their own way.

I'vw often wondered exactly what it is that the millionaries and media are funding, since all the TEA Party and 9-11 groups around here fund themselves and pay for supplies, books and so forth out of their own pockets.

So that's my question for you. Where do you think the millionaire and media money is going since the TEA Party isn't receiving any?

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 03:33 PM
Deregulating financial markets doesn't help small business owners, it helps wealthy wall street traders who throw millions around like poker chips. Tax cuts aimed at small businesses with few employees help. Tax cuts for adding to your business or hiring more people are great. If a public health option was available small business owners wouldn't have to worry about providing high cost benefits or about their employees falling ill and unproductive. Tax cuts for people who don't have a few hundred thousand dollars in savings and instead live paycheck to paycheck. These people spend the highest percent of their income because they have to, tax cuts for them will boost demand.

Bush's tax cuts, which even Republicans are now saying added and will continue to add significantly to the running deficit:

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/files/2010/09/12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/cantor-admits-bush-tax-cuts-will-add-to-deficits.php


House Minority Whip Eric Cantor reiterated his support for renewing the Bush-era tax cuts for all income brackets, including high-income earners. But he was also forced to admit, with apparent reluctance, that doing so will balloon the deficit, at a time when deficits are the GOP's supposed cause du jour.

FlaGator
09-24-2010, 03:34 PM
If the majority of the tax cuts go to the top 1-5% , rather than being used for programs that benefit the bottom 90%.

I'd take every child in America getting quality healthcare over a tax cuts that results in $150 at the end of the year for me and other middle or working class people, and for the highest tax bracket is more like $26 million tax cut at the end of the year.

Everyone gets a tax cut (but the rich get the most)? Or every child gets quality healthcare?

All of the tax cuts go to all who pay taxes except when the liberal side what to stir up class warfare by demonizing an generic group called the "rich". Even on an even percentage (say 10 percent) the person making 10,000 will pay 1,000 and the person making 100,000 will pay 10,000. Is that not the definition of fair?

I'm not even considering where the money goes because it is irrelevant to this conversation. The ends do not justify the means. Robin Hood may have taken from the rich and gave to the poor but legally he was a thief and to take what does not belong to you, no matter the reason, is wrong.

Wei Wu Wei
09-24-2010, 03:43 PM
All of the tax cuts go to all who pay taxes except when the liberal side what to stir up class warfare by demonizing an generic group called the "rich". Even on an even percentage (say 10 percent) the person making 10,000 will pay 1,000 and the person making 100,000 will pay 10,000. Is that not the definition of fair?

No it's not. Fair is contributing back into society proportionately to how much you benefit from it.

This means if you get financial aid or unemployment benefits or welfare you should do some volunteer work or community service.

This means if you have a good paying job thanks to the laws, systems, and institutions in place that allow society to run without everyone killing each other and stealing your shit then you should pay some portion of your income.

If you start a business easily and have special laws applied to you as a business owner to protect your assets, protect your intellectual property, and policies that allow your business to prosper rather than fall apart like it would in a 3rd world country then you should pay some portion of your income and the business revenue.

If you succeed and thrive and your environment, opportunities, and society-not-in-anarchy allow you to fully develop your capabilities and, with a little bit of luck, you become a multibillionaire owner of a media empire then you clearly have gained the best of what our system has to offer and you should pay back a little more of what you've earned.

That's fair in the abstract sense of paying back into a system that benefits you, and it's also fair in the plain realistic sense that the more you have, the more you can give without it being a real harm to you.



I'm not even considering where the money goes because it is irrelevant to this conversation. The ends do not justify the means. Robin Hood may have taken from the rich and gave to the poor but legally he was a thief and to take what does not belong to you, no matter the reason, is wrong.

Taxation is not wrong in itself. If you live in a society rather than out in the lawless wilderness then you should pay your dues. You do this in the form of duties, taxes, and law abidance, and you get benefits of citizenship in a civilized society.

Taxation at differing rates isn't wrong either.

Bailey
09-24-2010, 03:55 PM
No it's not. Fair is contributing back into society proportionately to how much you benefit from it.

This means if you get financial aid or unemployment benefits or welfare you should do some volunteer work or community service.

This means if you have a good paying job thanks to the laws, systems, and institutions in place that allow society to run without everyone killing each other and stealing your shit then you should pay some portion of your income.

If you start a business easily and have special laws applied to you as a business owner to protect your assets, protect your intellectual property, and policies that allow your business to prosper rather than fall apart like it would in a 3rd world country then you should pay some portion of your income and the business revenue.

If you succeed and thrive and your environment, opportunities, and society-not-in-anarchy allow you to fully develop your capabilities and, with a little bit of luck, you become a multibillionaire owner of a media empire then you clearly have gained the best of what our system has to offer and you should pay back a little more of what you've earned.

That's fair in the abstract sense of paying back into a system that benefits you, and it's also fair in the plain realistic sense that the more you have, the more you can give without it being a real harm to you.




Taxation is not wrong in itself. If you live in a society rather than out in the lawless wilderness then you should pay your dues. You do this in the form of duties, taxes, and law abidance, and you get benefits of citizenship in a civilized society.

Taxation at differing rates isn't wrong either.


So your saying this person who started this business and worked his/her ass off and risked everything should fork over how much of his profits to lazy bums? err poor people? but if him/her lost everthing I'm sure the poor would be there to help them.:rolleyes:

Taxing at different rates is wrong, one rate is good enough for everyone and its fair, since we arent a lawless society.

FlaGator
09-24-2010, 03:57 PM
No it's not. Fair is contributing back into society proportionately to how much you benefit from it.

This means if you get financial aid or unemployment benefits or welfare you should do some volunteer work or community service.

This means if you have a good paying job thanks to the laws, systems, and institutions in place that allow society to run without everyone killing each other and stealing your shit then you should pay some portion of your income.

If you start a business easily and have special laws applied to you as a business owner to protect your assets, protect your intellectual property, and policies that allow your business to prosper rather than fall apart like it would in a 3rd world country then you should pay some portion of your income and the business revenue.

If you succeed and thrive and your environment, opportunities, and society-not-in-anarchy allow you to fully develop your capabilities and, with a little bit of luck, you become a multibillionaire owner of a media empire then you clearly have gained the best of what our system has to offer and you should pay back a little more of what you've earned.

That's fair in the abstract sense of paying back into a system that benefits you, and it's also fair in the plain realistic sense that the more you have, the more you can give without it being a real harm to you.




Taxation is not wrong in itself. If you live in a society rather than out in the lawless wilderness then you should pay your dues. You do this in the form of duties, taxes, and law abidance, and you get benefits of citizenship in a civilized society.

Taxation at differing rates isn't wrong either.

That is a very intangible concept. One can contribute back to society without money being shifted to the government. Aren't they contributing back when they make purchases, or investing their money? Doesn't this keep people in society employed? Also perhaps they run a business or company that keeps people employed or provids goods and services to society? Why does being fair mean taking proportionally more money from the wealthy than from the middle class or poverty classes?

There is a strong desire on the part of liberals for not only contributing back to society but for wealth distribution. This is basically robbing Peter to prop up Paul. And what do those who are being propped up contribute to society since you are expecting the rich to contribute? If the wealthy are expected to give back to society because they benefit most from it then what about those who take most from society? For that matter who is truly benefiting from society without contributing back. The wealthy who spend and pay taxes or the indigent who survive off the dole? Why aren't there any expectations of them contributing back?

BDMcGee
09-24-2010, 04:50 PM
If the majority of the tax cuts go to the top 1-5% , rather than being used for programs that benefit the bottom 90%.



There's no such thing.

asdf2231
09-24-2010, 09:00 PM
I, too, believe that the sole purpose of the government should be protecting the interests of the wealthy ruling class.

JHC.

Make like a banana and go fuck yourself.

Gingersnap
09-24-2010, 09:24 PM
JHC.

Make like a banana and go fuck yourself.

Okay, I'm pretty sure that's why bananas are in an endangered state - they don't have sex anymore.

Back to why polls show conservative values becoming more mainstream for the press. ;)

warpig
09-25-2010, 01:41 PM
I, too, believe that the sole purpose of the government should be protecting the interests of the wealthy ruling class.

What liberals see as "protecting the rich" we see as not allowing people access to money that does not belong to them and have no right to.