Meh, I don't think she brings enough votes to the table.  I think someone from a swing state would be ideal - I'd favor someone like Ohio governor Ted Strickland.  He doesn't have a big national profile (or national following, or the kind of power base to actually challenge Obama's leadership in the way Cheney did to Bush, or in the way HRC would), but he's from a union state and is pretty much everything Obama isn't.  Additionally, he has previous DC experience, so he won't have quite as big a learning curve as someone who never set foot inside the beltway.  Jim Webb (or some other southerner) might be another possibility, but I don't know if he's as good as someone like Strickland because I'm not convinced Obama gains all that much from a southerner.  Obama will get out the black vote in droves in southern states no matter who he picks from VP, but I really doubt that having a southerner on as VP is actually going to changes the minds of any white southern racists as to who they'll vote for.  For a conflicted rust belt "Reagan Democrat", on the other hand, having someone like Strickland on the ticket might be just what it takes to tip that vote away from McCain.

I was just thinking they could go after McCain's "base" but wasn't familiar enough with who the major players are in the area outside of Richardson in NM.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I was just thinking they could go after McCain's "base" but wasn't familiar enough with who the major players are in the area outside of Richardson in NM.

The electoral college makes this a non-winning strategy, though.  This is what doomed Kerry - he was never going to win those Southern states anyway, so going after Bush's "base" by putting Edwards on the ticket was just asking to lose - and he did.  If Kerry had a "union man" on his ticket he very well may have won Ohio, and we would have had a very different last four years.  McCain will win the Southwest - it's almost foreordained.  The area went Republican in '00 and '04 and it's where he's from - attacking him there is attacking his strength.  The path to victory is the same damn states it was in '00 and '04 - Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.  These are all states Obama needs to shore up his support in and they're all (except maybe Florida) states where a "union man" would be a perfect complement to the ticket.  Virginia may be another potential swing state, but if it swings it will swing because of the influx of young, affluent, educated voters drawn to work in the D.C. area - and those are the very voters where Obama is the strongest, so I just don't think a southern strategy makes much sense for him.

So, the national primary results are
Obama   37.05%
Clinton 34.3%
Edwards 23.3%
and you're happy with that result, without knowing who the the Edwards supporters would select once he's out of the race?  Those numbers are the average from Iowa and New Hampshire.

The staged idea is good, but six months is way too long.  I'd like to see 5 random states a week for 10 weeks.

That could be easily fixed if the parties adopted instant runoff voting (or if we had a runoff election between the top two vote-getters if nobody received more than 50% of the votes).  Either process makes more sense than the current system.  Your five states a week for ten weeks would also be better than the current system, but I would still prefer a national primary based on IRV or with a runoff.  

Hillary coronated herself before Iowa.

I can't think of any nominee who got repeatedly trounced so handily in primaries after effectively locking up the nomination.

Indeed -- so what did he do? Kept the highest bracket tax rates at 74%+, and increased the payroll tax on social security. Pretty much the opposite of what economic theory says you should do (cut taxes) to stimulate the economy.

Assuming the economic theory you have in mind is Keynesian, that's almost right.  The Keynesian solution would not bother so much with the top brackets, but would focus on the middle brackets, since that's where most people are.  A lot of people like to try and take Keynes' recommendations to justify cutting taxes on the upper end, but Keynes advocated exactly the opposite, starting in the middle, working down, and then lastly, maybe shave a point or two off the upper end.  

In an economic contraction, the last people who need tax breaks are those in the upper brackets.  If you're rich enough to be in that upper bracket, you most likely have accountants available to you to lower your effective tax rate to begin with, so reducing tax rates at the top doesn't translate to much.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Assuming the economic theory you have in mind is Keynesian, that's almost right.  The Keynesian solution would not bother so much with the top brackets, but would focus on the middle brackets, since that's where most people are.  

You are quite correct (or as correct as is practical in generalized discussions). However this is why I also mentioned the increase in the payroll tax -- which affected the middle class far more than the top income earners due to the AGI income cap (i.e. after a certain income level you stop paying). In sum - in a time of Economic 'malaise' Carter kept taxes on the rich high, and raised taxes on the middle/lower class.

As a separate point, I violently disagree with the general statement 'well the rich don't pay taxes anyway because their accountants get them out of it' since the actual tax revenue numbers by demographic shows clearly that the upper quartiles paid the overwhelming majority of taxes.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

OK.  I'm not wealthy enough to be in the upper tax bracket, but even I know how to drive down my effective tax rate, which is what people at the upper brackets do as well.  If you had read my post, you will have noticed that I did not say that the wealthy do not pay any tax, it's just misleading to think that just because their income (and that has to be salaries, wages and income that is taxable at that rate) may indicate the upper brackets, there are ways to reduce that actual percentage.  It's called your 'effective tax rate'.  

The wealthy should pay the vast majority of taxes, so I don't know what your argument is there.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

OK.  I'm not wealthy enough to be in the upper tax bracket, but even I know how to drive down my effective tax rate, which is what people at the upper brackets do as well.

Certainly - however for the rich income earners (and an increasing number of upper-middle class americans), reducing your effective tax rate in a similar manner to what you do doesn't work due to the AMT -- alternative minimum tax.

I read your post as saying that the wealthy get out of paying tax due to tax accounting tricks - unless you are referring to fraud, the reality is that there are not going to be many accounting 'tricks' that reduces the taxes you pay on your high income.

As for the idea that the wealthy should pay the vast majority of taxes -- again I disagree. Richer people pay more taxes because thats the easiest place for government to raise revenue. However this results in a system where richer people are incented towards manipulating the government to create policy primarily beneficial to them. A saner and more fairer system would be to tax either based on utility use or asset control. The smartest thing a rich person can do when faced with America's tax system is to emigrate - the sooner the better.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

This is not the reason.  In Keynesian economics, you focus on the middle and lower brackets, because they'll spend any additional money they get instead of saving it, thereby multiplying the effect of any income they get.

It's important to know where Keynesian economics applies, which is only to the short term, or in situations with low inflation and high employment.

As far as the 1980 recession is concerned, relatively little blame should go to Carter directly.  It was primarily caused by the Fed under G. William Miller being far too loose in response to energy price driven stagflation, and a far to aggressive tightening under Paul Volcker being undertaken in response.  I suppose you can blame Carter for appointing Volcker in the first place.

In any case, a tax rise during a recession is bad news, even if previously planned.  As someone who opposes the Bush tax cuts in general, if the economy is as bad as I expect when they're set to expire, I think we'll need a temporary extension of them.

Sure, it's possible that Carter wasn't the right man for the job, not that I'm going to concede the point. Woodrow Wilson was damn-straight the right man to lead America in 1912. He made inroads into worker safety, strengthened child labor laws, supported Women's suffrage, strengthened anti-trust laws and generally made things better for the average ordinary American without crippling industry. If he'd retired in 1916 he'd be remembered fondly as a great reformer instead of being the guy that street between Taft and Harding is named for. Wilson was an isolationist, an intellectual and an idealist. He was the master bureaucrat, bent on leveling the playing field and giving equal opportunity to all white Americans.  

In 1917, the United States entered World War 1. Wilson found himself at the head of an American army heading off to fight en masse on foreign soil in what seemed like a war without end. To his credit, Wilson turned the fighting of the war over to General John "Blackjack" Pershing and gave him a free hand and within 18 months the war was over. Sadly, Wilson was out of his depth when it came to negotiating the peace. He was an idealist and thought that after five long years of war and 20 million dead the other parties involved would share his vision and join him in remaking Europe with a goal of eternal peace. Admirable to be sure, but foolish in retrospect.

My point here is that it's hard to know who's the right man for a job that hasn't yet been created. In November of 1999 no one was thinking about war with Iraq, but that's what we got. In November of 1975 no one was thinking about Iran at all, let alone the possibility of going to war there. It's easy to argue in retrospect that Wilson and Carter were the wrong men for the job they were given, but no one knew they'd have to do those jobs. If we'd known in 1975 what was going to happen in Iran we could have prevented it. Failing that, we could have elected someone less idealistic who would have taken a different path.

Nutsacking it, Carter got dealt a bad hand and played it as best as he could. George W. Bush got dealt a full house, decided to try for a straight flush, ended up with garbage and walked away knowing someone else would have to cover his bets.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things

So you're voting for Obama because he's black and his father was a muslim... because that might how somehow improve our standing with that semi-mythical "Arab Street"...or something like that.

Like I said to Sue in the diary, it must be nice to be able to afford to take gambles like that.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

My last two long term girlfriends were both small, independent business owners who aren't exactly rollin' in it and both are now Obama supporters. As someone who's always been sympathetic to the small business interests and now has had a detailed look at how the waves of the economy and regulation can directly impact them in two disparate sectors, I still don't see how on earth voting for another four years of this crap is anything approaching a safe bet. If I'm missing something terribly, I'd dearly like to know.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

So you're voting for Obama because he's black and his father was a muslim... because that might how somehow improve our standing with that semi-mythical "Arab Street"...or something like that.

No, because in international relations perception matters as much (or more) than reality, and the perception of the world, right now, is that we're bellicose warmongers who cannot be trusted and must be kept at an arm's length.  We're the new USSR - some countries take our aid and accept our leadership, but few love us anymore.  McCain will not change that - the world perceives him to be a continuation of Bush (and while I don't necessarily think he would be, what people believe often matters more than reality) and will treat him as such.  I don't want the US to be an international pariah - both for our own good and the world's good.  Obama offers a path away from that...perhaps it won't work, but it is a chance that is worth taking, particularly when the choice comes down to him or McCain.  In my ideal fantasy world, I'd love to see a domestic libertarian / international multilateralist in office, but unfortunately you have to play with the cards you're dealt.  Let me turn the cards on you - defend McCain to me.  Why would you give him your vote over Obama?  Do you really think McCain will be that good for the economy?  Don't forget he was one who was calling for stronger regulation of the stock market not all that long ago - if you're a true free marketer, it's not at all clear that McCain would be willing to veto the sort of economic packages that the all-but-inevitable Democratic Congress he would deal with for his first few years would send him, and I think I've already made clear why I don't expect he would do much good for our foreign policy...

And that agreement accomplished exactly what in the long term, Lou? Last time I looked Palestinians were still blowing themselves up in Israeli shopping malls and IDF tanks were still knocking down Palestinian houses.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

And that agreement accomplished exactly what in the long term, Lou?

Well, Sloth...I'm glad you asked.  You might have missed it, but since the CDA passed, there haven't been any major wars between Egypt and Israel.  I know that's a small thing what with the Soviets threatening to enter the conflict on Egypt's side.   Granted, things still suck for the Palestinians, but I for one am mighty glad two of the most powerful nations in the middle east haven't slugged it out for 30+ years.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I didn't miss a damn thing, Lou.

Look, we have wildly differing world views, obviously. But I honestly have not tried to be condescending towards you, and if any of what I have posted in this thread was taken that way, I offer my sincerest apologies.

I'm pretty well-versed in what was going on the region in the 70s, and in truth after the '73 war the Egyptians could no longer field a credible threat to the Israeli southern frontier - which was one (Just one ok? I know the whole story is incredibly complicated) of the reasons the Egyptians were even willing to talk in the first place.

But enough of such a weird digression. I think Jimmy Carter is in a dead heat with GWB for the title of worst president of the modern era. You evidently hold a higher opinion of him. I don't think an already weakened US economy can afford a true Liberal in the White House right now. You think BHO is gonna save your mortal soul.

Ok.

You still don't have to be an asshole about it.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

You think BHO is gonna save your mortal soul.

Look, I don't even think Jesus could save my soul at this point much less any politician.  If it's all the same, I take care of my own soul, thank you very much.

Also, other than rating the comments of my pal Mrs. Sue funny...do you have any examples where I said I wanted to go back to the Carter age?  Good god man...that was the age of disco and stadium rock.  However, by the same token I would prefer not to go back to the Golden Age of Nixon (I am not a crook), Ford (Whip Inflation Now), Bush the Elder (buying socks to stave off a recession), Bush the Younger, or even Clinton.  And I would only go back to the age of Reagan if we had the same kind of vibe with the music.  Ah, frig that...I'll buy the sound track and skip that era too.

And quite frankly, I really don't give a flying fig at a rolling doughnut about Carter.  Did he suck as a prez?  Meh.  Probably.  But having lived through Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, I have now been exposed to so many flavors of suck it's hard for me to get worked up.  And you know, I'm sorry that I don't have the same level of white hot hate you have for Carter, but there ya have it.

I'm not sure about the condescension.  Smart ass, maybe.  That's my nature.

And finally,
You still don't have to be an asshole about it.

Pot.kettle.black.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Pot.kettle.black.

I know this is beyond pointless, but I honestly do not see where I've acted like an asshole toward you in any of this. I have even tried to apologize for any misperceptions I have unintentionally created.

[ shrug]

(Unless you are simply suggesting that the fact I disagree with you makes me an asshole... If so, I can't argue.)

Carter came up because I stated that he was the last real liberal to hold the office. His presidency - for whatever reasons - turned out very badly. Now comes Obama in (as logan has astutely pointed out) times that look a lot like 1976 redux. Is he gonna handle the job better than Carter did? Maybe. Maybe not. But I still believe that I have posed valid questions (that no one seems to want to tackle) about whether a liberal is what we need right now when one considers what happened in 1977-1981.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I know this is beyond pointless, but I honestly do not see where I've acted like an asshole toward you in any of this.

I don't think you've acted like an asshole, but I do think you overreacted rather harshly to Lou's post. Maybe you're less familiar with his usual tone than I am, though.

You do seem a bit hung up on Carter:

But I still believe that I have posed valid questions (that no one seems to want to tackle) about whether a liberal is what we need right now when one considers what happened in 1977-1981.

First of all, I think some have answered you, but you, as is your right, disagree. More important, though, is the stridency in your apparent view that a person deemed as liberal today is a replica of a liberal -- a specific one, to boot -- from more than 30 years ago

...but I do think you overreacted rather harshly to Lou's post. Maybe you're less familiar with his usual tone than I am, though...

Perhaps. During my long hiatus from TnT, I did try to keep and read most everything that was posted, but it's certainly possible that Lou's smooth style was lost on my rough sensibilities.

In my own defense I would point out that this whole thing started in the diary where Lou basically stated that anyone here who didn't support Obama was a member of the KKK.

Did he intend that to be funny?  Maybe.
Did I think it was funny? Nope.

I feel as though I've stumbled into a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It seems everyone here has drunk the Obama-aid except me and a hand full of others, and it's getting a bit creepy as I don't think I have ever seen TnT so near-unanimous on any other issue.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I feel as though I've stumbled into a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It seems everyone here has drunk the Obama-aid except me and a hand full of others, and it's getting a bit creepy as I don't think I have ever seen TnT so near-unanimous on any other issue.

Again, I think you are seriously overreacting. I don't post that often here, but I do read daily. I see no such groupthink whatsoever and definitely no creepy unanimous outpouring of adulation.

At most, all I've discerned is a modulated sense of some hope, some light at the end of a long, dark eight-year tunnel.

Suddenly a simple statement of opinion is characterized as an "overreaction."  

Heh.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Suddenly a simple statement of opinion is characterized as an "overreaction."  

Heh.

Your words: I feel as though I've stumbled into a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It seems everyone here has drunk the Obama-aid except me and a hand full of others, and it's getting a bit creepy as I don't think I have ever seen TnT so near-unanimous on any other issue.

So if I'm wrong that the above is an overreaction, then please point me towards all the posts that ooze such creepy, cultish vibrations in awe of Obama, because I've managed to miss them all.

Now, if you want to talk creepy, how about the Ron Paul-aid several were sipping on recently. :-)

Jesus, Sue. It's called hyperbole. I thought the Invasion... reference was maybe even funny.

And as for Ron Paul, his rise and fall came completely during my hiatus, so you can't pin that one...

Hey, get the hell out of my dumpster. No those are not packages of "Paul-aid fruit drink mix" What the hell are you talking about? Turn those goddamned cameras off...

So there.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

You say "hyperbole"; I say "overreact":

Verse
Things have come to a pretty pass
Our romance is growing flat,
For you like this and the other
While I go for this and that,
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as if we two will never be one
Something must be done:

Chorus - 1
You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if you like pyjamas and I like pyjahmas, I'll wear pyjamas and give up
pyajahmas
For we know we need each other so we , Better call the whole off off
Let's call the whole thing off.

Chorus - 2
You say laughter and I say larfter, You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter, Let's call the whole thing off,

You like vanilla and I like vanella, You saspiralla, and I saspirella
Vanilla vanella chocolate strawberry, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh if we call the whole thing of then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if you go for oysters and I go for ersters, I'll order oysters and cancel
the ersters
For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.

Chorus - 3
I say father, and you say pater, I saw mother and you say mater
Pater, mater Uncle, auntie, let's call the whole thing off.

I like bananas and you like banahnahs, I say Havana and I get Havahnah
Bananas, banahnahs Havana, Havahnah, Go your way, I'll go mine

So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters, So all right no contest we'll
order lobseter
For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.

♥

I have no idea what you just said but it reads like poetry.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Uhhhh...

Thanks?

I think?

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Apparently, you missed the TNT Presidential primary, then. It was between Obama and Ron Paul.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Lou's smooth style was lost on my rough sensibilities.

If it takes you some time to get up to speed, don't sweat it.  Remember, I'm here to help.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I think this "liberal" is exactly what we need right now, actually, which is to say that I don't find him terribly liberal at all. He's talked rather tough on NAFTA to impress his base constituency but he's not going to roll it back. I'd like to see someone hold the line there--no "progress," no roll backs, implement the next set of trade agreements at a slowly over the next few years instead of now, now, now. As far as tax policy, I expect Obama to raise the minimum on who pays, do away with the AMT and handle the rest of his tax policy a la Bill Clinton, cut the middle class's while asking the tippy top (Bush's "base") to pay a slightly higher share. I expect his international and trade policy's to revive the economy to a better degree than any voodoo economic corporate payoffs McCain would make. For my money, unless they're crocodile tears, I'd expect someone in the entrepreneurial class to fair better under Obama but then again you haven't taken on my question of why you consider McCain friendlier to small business so perhaps I just haven't been properly dissuaded? I'm hoping maybe you're saving it all up for a write-up.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I've not been dodging your questions. I really don't know how to answer them in any meaningful way beyond what I've said in other posts.

You seem to think Obama is a Bill Clinton-esque centrist - or at least that's what it sounds like in this post. I'm not saying he isn't, but you are about the only person I've yet run across who characterizes him that way. His own campaign propaganda makes him sound like a populist straight from the heart of the party's old left wing. And those guys traditionally sock it to the middle class to pay for improvements in services for those nearer the poverty line.

Is that what Obama is going to do? Maybe not. But you seem to be about the only person I can find who says that he won't.

Otoh, I'm not going to even try to defend McCain. I see him as strictly a lesser of two evils choice. I think domestically he will try to maintain the status quo, and that, as badly as it sucks in some ways, is at least a devil I know and have already planned for.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Gotcha. Here's a breakdown of an issue that's one example of why I expect Barack Obama to bring America the kind of economic vitality that Bill Clinton did.

Obama's website says the following:

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

To me, this says that he will continue to push for more free trade agreements but he will work to ensure American industry is preserved by seeing that other countries work by American standards, instead of falling to international corporate interests that want to see America's standards watered down through competition, thus hurting American-based business and workers.

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

While is somewhat bothersome to me, I think this is mainly non-starter designed to give lip service to a certain constituency. He may "try" but looking at the long list of stuff and reading between his other lines, it doesn't seem like it's the priority to him it would take to actually do damage to the progress of NAFTA.

Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

To me, this is him acknowledging free trade is here to stay, so let's deal with it folks. In that regard, I think he's always had the most realistic approach of any candidate. He's always said, yeah let's so down the pace of these new trade agreements but it's always been tempered with a very Bill Clinton-esque breaking it to them softly acceptance of reality.

This is what John McCain has to say about international trade on his website:

John McCain Will Act To Make American Workers More Competitive. We must prepare the next generation of workers by making American education worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves. We must be a nation committed to competitiveness and opportunity. We must fight for the ability of all students to have access to any school of demonstrated excellence. We must place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children.

What the fuck? No seriously, What The Fuck. You're looking at someone happy to vote Republicans back into control in the Senate to offset any possible over-liberalness of an Obama Presidency so I don't think I'm exactly on the fringe here when I say John McCain's plans for international trade are what exactly again? School vouchers? Am I reading that right?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I am referring to the Soviets threatening to help Egypt during the Yom Kippur war.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Yeah, but that's Bush's fault ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

If the next President is Obama, then the GOP will drag their feet all the way in an attempt to scuttle his agenda and then they'll blame him for everything that goes wrong as well as the lack of progress.

Regardless of who wins the Presidency, I'm convinced that they'll go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever.  I'm convinced that this would still have been the case for all of the candidates rejected in the primaries.  We consistently blame (and credit) Presidents for things which are not their fault.   The situation with peak oil, energy prices, fertilizer prices, food prices, the trade deficit, the loss of foreign confidence in the US as an investment destination in the wake of foreign investors being left holding the bag on the mortgage meltdown mess, and the resulting free fall of the dollar and resulting inflationary pressures is so bad that I'm convinced that if we elected God Himself, he'd still go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever.

Shane, please don't take this personally, but I have to say that I am FAR more worried about my 2010 federal income tax bill than I am about what Canadians (or anyone else) think of who our president is.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I am FAR more worried about my 2010 federal income tax bill

As someone who is currently underemployed and uninsured...and is looking forward to a national health care system should McCain lose, I too am worried about your 2010 tax bill.

Bwaahahahahahahah!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Guess what, Lou. I am currently unable to cash my last two paychecks, and I haven't had health insurance in almost four years.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

There is something I have never understood in the US.  Why do poor people vote for Republicans when Republicans regularly f*ck them over?

It's not like lower taxes is going to benefit YOU, it's going to benefit ME (I own a business and am in a high tax bracket).    And things like free trade are further screwing over the working class by insuring that everything is outsourced to lower cost areas.

Never mind liberalizing business regulations or not having a national health system.  

I don't understand, really.   Does gun control, abortion and gay marriage really outweigh loosing your job, having your skills made worthless by outsourcing, lowering taxes on the rich and not having health care while businesses confiscate your land to build malls?

I understand why I should vote Republican or why some of my very wealthy friends support McCain and Bush, but I don't understand why blue collar, working class and working poor people do.   It just seems SO against your interests.

Seriously, Sloth, please explain your rational for being so 'conservative' when you seem to claim poverty.  

You really haven't been paying attention to much I've been saying. I'm poor right now because I work for  and own a significant equity stake in a tiny start-up (that could be easily snuffed out if this oil bubble doesn't pop in the next year or so). For most of my life, I have been what most of you would call solidly middle class. My personal AGI in constant 2006 dollars has hovered in the 50-65k range for most of my career.

I AM the people that traditional left of center democratic fiscal policies hurt the most.

I don't give a damn about gay marriage or abortion as election issues. My personal opinions support both. But I vote on... I guess you'd call them "economic liberty" -type issues. Property rights, tort reform, deregulation, a reasonable exemption to the inheritance tax, low capital gains rates, etc.

I got off the corporate treadmill a little over 10 years ago to attempt to make my own way. I've had some successes and I've had some failures, but mostly I want the government to just stay the fuck off my back.

I don't see Team Obama to be very promising in that regard.

p.s. Being from the rural South, I do like my guns. That one I freely admit to. But it seems that even the democrats have discovered that outside of the bluest of the blue states gun control doesn't win them many supporters

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Actually, you are part of the group that is getting most screwed by Republicans.  The 2003 tax cuts don't do shit unless you make 3x what you make and new tax rules will screw over your options (but not mine, I am an investor).   In fact, nothing changed for you as you did not change tax brackets.  

And, on top of that, things like SarBox have made public exits virtually impossible and have increase M&A costs massively, reducing overall valuations. Never mind that not having national health care increases both your health care costs AND makes it more likely your employer will never offer it.

Plus, if you are in an sort of a tech startup, your job is always at risk of going elsewhere.  Yes, I am sure of this, I am often one of the people who advises Boards of DIrectors on this sort of thing.

IF you were making in the $150K+ range or had a high net worth, Republicans would have a ton of policies in your favor, but at your income range, you are deluding yourself if you think that they want to help you out.   Just look at who voted against the marriage penalty tax cut.

So, my question still the same, why do you support Republicans?