|Rich folks vs Po folks||Ted the Horseman|
Jan 28, 2002 10:59 AM
|Why is it that you don't hear of many conservative, Rush Limbaugh-loving poor folks? Let's face it. Most "conservatives" are wealthy white folks who thinks they have it all sussed. If they lost all their money or daddy's money that allows them to not have to worry about such things like heath care and rent they would sing a different tune.|
|so who voted for Bush?||Dog|
Jan 28, 2002 11:09 AM
|I think you are a little disconnected. Bush supporters (who may or may not be Limbaugh fans), include many hard working, dirty fingernailed, regular people. There are not enough "rich" people in the country to elect anyone. The "regular" folks carry elections. The numbers won't work out any other way.
Also, don't forget that many people who have made money did not start off that way. Many started with nothing more than a desire to better themselves. They want other people to share in that opportunity, too.
|So who would vote for Gore or Nader now?||MB1|
Jan 28, 2002 11:15 AM
|Oh we would really be in it deep with one of them in office.
My .02 worth YMMV
Jan 28, 2002 12:09 PM
|Really? How do you know? I personally don't think much of anything would be different--there would still be a failing economy, Sept. 11, and a military response of some kind. Do you really think the president or administration is so powerful? I do think that Gore might not have let the Israel situation escalate quite as much before Sept 11 (Bush was on vacation)--but that wouldn't have stopped Sept. 11. Considering that Nader really never had a chance (he was mostly running to put the Green on the map) I think it's silly to even postulate what he would do in office.|
|Gore, yes, Nader, no. But...||Retro|
Jan 29, 2002 8:31 AM
|Don't just toss out crap like this and expect everybody to accept it. Nader's a cipher, but what's the problem with Gore? He has more experience than Bush by far, and Bush isn't running the war in any case; he's just sitting back and listening to his father's retreads tell him what to do. The few good people he picked himself (notably Colin Powell) are separating themselves from some of his policies (the POW issue, the global placement of troops). Gore probably wouldn't be any BETTER, but he'd be no worse.|
Jan 30, 2002 6:09 AM
|Although I support Bush's handling of the terrorist problem, I believe that Gore would have done equally as well -- providing the Republicans in Congress gave him the support needed, which is a big if. Gore actually served in the military, in contrast to Bush. The most important responsibility for the President is surrounding yourself with good people, and Bush has done OK in that regard. I believe Gore would have done just as well. |
The main differences between Bush and Gore will appear over time, once the war on terrorism has subsided. If Bush and the Republicans ignore the economy and the plight of everyday Americans, "W" will face the same fate as his father did in seeking re-election. Remember, big George had a 90% approval rating at the end of the Gulf War.
|The problem with this||DOH!|
Jan 28, 2002 11:18 AM
|The poor people that voted for Bush thought they were getting something (a tax break maybe) that wasn't really in their interest. So now the economy has gone to hell and many lose their jobs, the fed continues to cut the interest rate (little to no advantage to poor people living check to check). Basically they were snowed by false promises of getting more $ in their paychecks but in the end just enabled corporate fat cats to continue to feed at the trough. And then you could argue that the people don't really elect the president. It's the electoral college. Not a true democracy by any means. And do you think the poor have well-paid lobbyists working for them? I think not.|
|You're dead wrong||Troyboy|
Jan 28, 2002 11:57 AM
|If you think the economy has gone to hell because in any part of Bush, you're dead wrong and know nothing of finance and economics. This is a big boat that no one man can steer. Once the boat begins a slight turn, it is the result of prior years of effort or non-effort. What we have now is the result of several years of non-effective economic policy. Do you not recall the record breaking layoffs each month during the past 4 years???? Economics is also quite cyclical. Lots of people fattened up during some quite special years. The internet changed the world, people got rich and now we're all in need of a leaning period. Where I live (the real world) there are just as many rich Democrats as Republicans. In fact in my state there are many more rich Dems than Republicans. I believe there is a statistic out there that I heard within a couple of months. If I'm repeating it correctly, something like 80% of the US lawyers are registered Democrats. I was really quite shocked.
Fact, I don't recall a tax rebate over the past few years from a president? Bush granted us a nice one that he and all of us should have demanded be bigger. Fact, Clinton vetoed some tax breaks on his way out of office that would have some real effect on all us poor people. Fact, I believe non-military spending is up over 10% from the last Clinton year. You may post your *false promises* if you'd like. There were none in my opinion and no snow jobs. You want to talk about false promises? How about two elections of Clinton campaign promises? Oh my, talk about bull and snow jobs and ridiculous campaign talk......
|Yes you are wrong||spookyload|
Jan 28, 2002 11:25 PM
|I for one did see a big raise in my paycheck. Bush has seen fit to bring the majority of the military above poverty level. I have flown combat missions over Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now "over there" in the last decade, and thanks to GW I am finally making over $40,000 a year. Quite a bargain for the taxpayers in my opinion. I have a troop who is 20, been in the service for two years, married for 1 year, and he has to tell his wife that they can't afford to have kids even though they want nothing more in life than a child to love. He has the maturity to see his $20,000 salary isn't enough to support three people. Bye the way, he got shot at, and survived an attack by anti aircraft fire last month. No extra pay for the getting shot at part. But then again he isn't in it for the pay. He is in it so Joe American can say how horrible Sept 11 was while drinking his $7 beer at the Superbowl at $400 a ticket and not having to worry if someone is protecting him.|
|A sea of mashed potatoes||hms|
Jan 28, 2002 11:24 AM
|About 20 years ago, I attended a lecture by Irving Howe. He said that socialism in America "foundered on a sea of mashed potatoes." Most people in the United States are not rich. But, many people in the United States are comfortable. Also, I think that there is substantial optimism among Americans about their ability to improve their lot in life. That explains, for example, why, even though there are few Americans who are subject to estate taxes, a substantial majority are in favor of abolishing them.|
|re: Rich folks vs Po folks||BikingViking|
Jan 28, 2002 11:28 AM
|Nothing like the old "class warfare" bit to make Democrats feel better for taking money from the "rich". It doesn't matter HOW the rich got their money (as long as it was legal), IT'S THEIR MONEY!!! What gives anyone the right to overtax them just because they have more than you? The poor people didn't get a tax cut because THEY DON'T PAY ANY TAXES!
If people would only see someone's success as somethig to strive for instead of trying take their hard-earned money through the confiscatory practices of the Federal Government.
I think if everyone paid taxes at the rates the so-called "rich" do, they would be singing quite a different tune!
If you want to live a better life, work harder and get the things the "evil rich people" have.
|Definition of rich||mr_spin|
Jan 28, 2002 11:49 AM
|Funny how rich is typically defined as anyone who makes more than you do.|
|Definition of rich||Dog|
Jan 28, 2002 11:59 AM
|*That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest. Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862
*It is the wretchedness of being rich that you have to live with rich people. Logan Pearsall Smith (1865 - 1946)
*No matter how rich you become, how famous or powerful, when you die the size of your funeral will still pretty much depend on the weather. Michael Pritchard
*Memory is a man's real possession...In nothing else is he rich, in nothing else is he poor. Alexander Smith
*Who is rich? He that is content. Who is that? Nobody. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
*The greatest good you can do for another is not just share your riches, but to reveal to him his own. Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881)
*The best way to realize the pleasure of feeling rich is to live in a smaller house than your means would entitle you to have. Edward Clarke
*Most of us would like to be smarter than we are, stronger than we are, richer than we are, but we don't feel all that comfortable with people who are. Mickey Manfield
|Clearly Thoreau wasn't into cycling...||mr_spin|
Jan 28, 2002 12:03 PM
|Relaxing in a boat on Walden Pond all day doesn't cost much, but cycling ain't a cheap pleasure!|
Jan 28, 2002 12:42 PM
|That Thoreau quote is one of my favorites...
I feel rich when I have a brand new set of tires, a fair day of sunshine, two full water bottles, a well tuned bike and the wind at my back...being rich is finding inner peace.
"To be content with what we possess is the greatest and most secure of all riches".
Jan 28, 2002 12:51 PM
|I'm finding much more pleasure, but I can't really pin down why, on my $500 fixed gear bike than the Colnago. Maybe it's the simplicity, purity, and challenge.
Jan 28, 2002 12:55 PM
|I am wavering between fixed and free though. There is something about not shifting...|
Jan 28, 2002 1:01 PM
|I'd like to see fixed gear road racing. It would be cool seeing the peloton grunting up 10% grades and then spinning their butts off down. Sprint finishes would be much closer, I'd think, too. I'd like to see them with a formula/spec bike, all with the same gears. Bianchi Pista's for everyone!
It would be very egalitarian ($500 total for a rig), with no technology advances permitted. Back to 1900. I think people would really get in to it.
I'd like to do it, too. There would be no excuses about aero-wheels, bla bla bla. Just ride. Period.
|Is there a velodrome in the central valley?||Alex-in-Evanston|
Jan 28, 2002 1:33 PM
|Perhaps you could live your dream - without the hills unfortunately.
Jan 28, 2002 2:16 PM
|Closest is San Jose. Gotta have the hills, though.|
|I like that Edward Clark quote||gtx|
Jan 28, 2002 12:54 PM
|can't believe how big houses are getting. I feel rich when I'm not worried about money. I think this is why a lot of people who are basically "rich" don't feel rich--because they still worry about money. I'd be worried too if I had to clean and heat and maintain a 5,000 square foot house.|
|re: Rich folks vs Po folks||TxTarpon|
Jan 28, 2002 11:51 AM
|--Why is it that you don't hear of many conservative, Rush Limbaugh-loving poor folks?
Vote me, I am one.
--If they lost all their money or daddy's money that allows them to not have to worry about such things like heath care and rent they would sing a different tune.
Lost as in how?
Stolen? I pay for insurance.
Loose my job? I have money saved.
Why do I have money saved? I don't spend 40% of my income on a car payment.
Why don't I spend 40% of my income on a car payment? Because I don't want to have my employer hold that much power over me.
I work with people who have nice houses. I rent.
They eat out daily. I brown bag it.
I work with people that make $35,000 a year and pay $400 a month on a lease for a car. I paid for my little pickup long ago.
Some people don't live within their means. This makes them "broke", not "poor".
Jan 28, 2002 11:59 AM
|I'm with you.|
|more like urban vs. rural||gtx|
Jan 28, 2002 12:15 PM
|Most of the urban areas went to Gore and the rural areas to Bush.|
|here's the map and stats||Dog|
Jan 28, 2002 1:12 PM
Counties won by Gore: 677
Counties won by Bush: 2436
Population of counties won by Gore: 127 Million
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 Million
Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000
States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29
National Popular Vote for Gore 50,996,116
National Popular Vote for Bush 50,456,169
Electoral Votes for Gore 266
Electoral Votes for Bush 271
Jan 28, 2002 1:17 PM
|I'm cutting and pasting from a cached page of the Gallup site (it will probably look ugly but it is interesting).
Gore, Bush Rally Traditional Constituent Groups
Gender gap persists; rural/urban divide pronounced
by Jeffrey M. Jones
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush competed in the most tightly contested presidential election in a generation. The latest tally of the nationwide popular vote -- as of Wednesday night -- puts Gore at 48.2% and Bush at 48.1%. Gallup’s final pre-election poll, which involved interviews with 2,350 likely voters on Sunday and Monday, provides insights into the voting patterns of key subgroups and reveals the coalitions of voters each candidate was able to develop in his quest for the presidency. The percentages reported here are adjusted numbers that reflect each candidate’s proportion of the vote earned as of the Wednesday nationwide compilations.
As in most recent election years, a gender gap was apparent in 2000. Gore won the support of 50% of women and 43% of men in the final pre-election poll, while Bush showed almost the identical reverse pattern, getting the votes of 51% of men and 43% of women.
Partisans overwhelmingly remained loyal to their candidates, with Republicans slightly more solid behind Bush (91%) than Democrats were for Gore (87%). Bush edged Gore by a small margin among independent voters, 43% to 40%. (Gallup’s final sample indicated that likely voters on Election Day were slightly more Democratic than Republican.)
Blacks continue to overwhelmingly support Democratic presidential candidates, as 93% voted for Gore while only 3% voted for Bush.
Whites, on the other hand, showed much stronger support for Bush, by a 53% to 42% margin over Gore.
Gallup’s final pre-election sample indicated that the two candidates did equally well among younger voters -- those aged 18-29. Both got 46% of the young adult vote. Additionally, the two candidates fared similarly among voters aged 50-64, with Gore at 48% within this subgroup and Bush at 47%. Age differences were more apparent among those between the ages of 30 and 49, who supported Bush 51% to 44% over Gore, and among those aged 65 and over who more strongly supported Gore (53% to 39%).
The candidates split evenly among college graduates, with each receiving 47% of that vote. These overall numbers hide an interesting phenomenon -- Gore did much better among voters with a post-graduate education, winning 52% of that vote compared to 42% for Bush. Meanwhile, Bush did better among those with a college degree but no post-graduate education, by a similar 52% to 43% margin.
Voters with a high school education or less went to Gore, 50% to 42%.
Catholic voters gave a slight edge to Gore in the 2000 election, as the vice president earned 49% of the Catholic vote while Bush amassed 44%. Protestants favored Bush by a 54% to 41% margin. Those with other religious preferences or no religion at all went for Gore, by a 51% to 40% margin.
Regular churchgoers strongly favored Bush, 55% to 38% over Gore. Those who do not attend church regularly favor Gore, 53% to 40%.
Conservative voters showed solid support for Bush, as would be expected, favoring him 69% to 26% over Gore. Liberal voters demonstrated even stronger support for Gore, 81% to 9%. The moderate vote went to Gore, by a 53% to 39% margin.
As the electoral vote indicated, each candidate did very well in specific regions of the country. Gore enjoyed a healthy advantage among voters in the Eastern part of the country, by a 53% to 40% margin. Bush did very well in the South, where 53% of voters supported his candidacy compared to 43% who supported Gore. The West and Midwest divided more evenly between the two candidates, with Gore winning 46% of the Western vote compared to 45% for Bush, and Bush edging Gore in the Midwest, 47% to 46%.
The two candidates also show different bases of support by place of residence. Voters in urban areas strongly supported Gore, by a 59% to 34% margin. Conversely, rural voters give Bush a strong advantage, 58% to 36%. Voters in the suburbs give Bush a slight advantage, 49% to 44%.
Those with household incomes of less than $20,000 supported Gore by 54% to 38% over Bush. Those making between $20,000 and $50,000 gave Gore a slight edge, 49% to 45%. Voters making in excess of $50,000 favored Bush, 52% to 44%.
A "marriage gap" was also evident in 2000 -- as in previous elections. Married voters gave strong support to Bush, 55% to 40% over Gore. Non-married voters favored Gore, 56% to 36%.
Parents of children under 18 showed a slight preference for Bush, 50% to 47%, while those without children showed a slight preference for Gore, 49% to 44%.
Union members showed solid support for Gore, favoring him over Bush, 67% to 30%.
Gun owners strongly supported Bush, 58% to 38%.
Results based on likely voters are based on the three-day subsample of -- 2,350 -- survey respondents deemed most likely to vote in the November 2000 General Election, according to a series of questions measuring current voting intentions and past voting behavior. For results based on the total sample of likely voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is +/- 2 percentage points. . In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. The results shown here are adjusted to reflect the actual vote each candidate received.
Gallup’s likely voter estimation for 2000 assumes that 50% of the voting age population (VAP) will turn out to vote. In 1996, turnout among the VAP was 49%. The average turnout rate in all presidential elections since 1980 is approximately 52%.
|Hey Doug, one note...||PaulCL|
Jan 28, 2002 1:23 PM
|..on the popular vote, which has been a rallying cry for Democrats since the end of the election. The vote tallies in your graphic do not include the over 6 million absentee votes that were never counted. For example, your state of California had a million not counted. They were not counted in the states where they could not have an effect - like in your homestate where Gore won by well over a million votes.
As I am sure you know, absentee votes historically favor republicans by a wide margin. So if popular vote counted, absentee votes would have counted and I believe, though we'll never know, that Bush would have won the popular vote also. I had to add this post becuase someone will definitely point out the popular vote number. I just wanted to beat them to the punch.
P.S. From what webpage did you get that map??? I have a Dem. friend to email it to...ha...ha...ha...
Jan 29, 2002 11:53 AM
|Our poor in the US would be relatively rich in some other countries. Our poor dream about riches, but choose laziness and free handouts. This isn't an absolute blanket truth, but a negative trend.
A comedian's act said about begging homeless people on the corner, "Hey buddy, do you owe anyone anything? No, you DON'T?! Damn, I'm working my @$$ off trying to pay off huge debts to get where YOU are, and you want ME to give YOU MONEY?!!" ...It was funny at first, but then I realized the error of his logic. He may owe lots of money, but that enables him to eat every time he is hungry and sleep in a comfortable bed. Sharing a bridge with rats, roaches, mosquitoes and hunger pangs is not worth the lack of debt!
I've spent many months in Mexico, getting to know the various villagers, Indians (that speak almost no Spanish to this day!), laborers, shop workers, and farmers. These people usually don't have much to show for from their long days of hard work ($18-25 per week is the average worker's pay). Some don't work at all or don't work very hard, and they have even less. That is a choice they make though. They live in little shacks and concrete houses with a naked bulb swaying from the ceiling and a dirt floor. Some use newspaper to insulate the walls. When it's 40 degrees outside, it's 40 degrees inside. There are usually 3 generations living together in each house. A few dogs, chickens, and pigs run around the courtyard. The dogs are defense, so they stay alive. Cats are rare!
What is overwhelming is how these people do not see themselves as poor in the same way the poor in the US does. They know there isn't any handout waiting for them, so they accept a hard life, and work hard to keep what they have. Some are thieves, but most are honest. Most will welcome you into their humble homes with open arms and not expect anything from you except courtesy. Some, who after getting to know you, will kill one of their few chickens to make a meal for you. I've even seen one old lady sew a design into a cloth that covered the tortillas, which is a present.
These are not perfect people, nor is their world perfect. They do possess riches that we tend to look past in our busy lives and quests for the next thing to buy... they are content with what they already have. They value highly the love of the family. They accept what happens in life and don't rush to blame others. Yes, they dream of riches, but not for long since that is folly.
They are wonderful teachers in my opinion. It is so easy to get caught up in the fabricated worlds we live in and miss some of the simple jewels we are surrounded with. Sometimes they are guilty of missing out on what the rest of the world is doing, but then so do we!
"Living in the [tidal] pools they soon forget about the sea." -Rush
|It's a state of mind, not a state of wealth...||TJeanloz|
Jan 30, 2002 8:11 AM
|People who are rich and people who are poor generally have different attitudes about there status. It doesn't always have a whole lot to do with money-in-pocket. I baffled a lot of people when I was in college, because I lived in a disaster of an apartment which was dirt cheap. And at the same time, I drove a Porsche. Everybody who saw my car first thought I was a rich brat, everybody who saw my house first thought I was a charity case. I lived well on a lot less money than most people think is possible. The $8/hr I made at the bike shop pretty much paid for everything I needed. People get so hung up on how they compare to everybody else that they forget to just live their own lives.
Another example that's pretty amusing to point out is that Donald Trump was almost certainly the poorest man in America in the early 1990s. The man was billions of dollars in debt- and people think their $5,000 of credit card debt is a lot. But Mr. Trump never went on the welfare roles- he was poorer than dirt, but he (and the rest of the world) was still sure that he was rich.
As for conservatives, they mostly aren't rich. Only about 1% of the country can be considered 'rich'; and conservatives account for 30%+ of the population. So that leaves a pretty sizable number of conservatives who are not rich.
|re: Rich folks vs Po folks||Duane Gran|
Jan 31, 2002 9:35 AM
|I'll bit on this one. There are of course exceptions, but I bet your generalization is mostly true. Limbaugh talks politics, which is a simple form of philosophy. As they say, don't talk philosophy to a hungry person. The upper middle class and rich aren't stressing about the fundamental issues (rent, meals, etc) so they are probably more receptive to listening to political philosophy. If they are really smart, they will listen to the Ralph Nader's too, if for no other reason than to know what plans are afoot to alter the system.
Some others have pointed out some good points about the relative meaning of rich and poor. I've learned a few things, some by experience and some through good advisors:
* Most non-rich ask the rich for the wrong thing. The poor and middle class want a loan or they want a job. The rich will give this, but it won't make another person rich. Instead, ask a rich person how they do it. People generally like to share good knowledge.
* The poor and middle class purchase liabilities and the rich purchase assetts.
* Earning more money from a job will never make a person rich because the government taxes the money before you even get it. Worse yet, the graduated scale means you keep less the more you earn. This is stuff we all know, but most people think getting enough raises will make them more wealthy.
* Being an employee means that your income goes through a Earn -> Tax -> Spend route. Owning a business means that you legally Earn -> Spend -> Tax. The rich own businesses because they can spend pre-tax money, and it isn't hard to spend it in such a way that you indirectly benefit from the business expense.
Since the topic was rich vs poor I thought I would throw out some thinking comparisons. If anyone else knows a few more feel free to mention them.