Current Events > Do republican voters not realise they are poor?

(+) Yeah! (+)

just a question

---

Being poor and disliking redistribution (at least, you know, outside of ag subsidies), are not mutually exclusive.

Most of them aren't.
---

They are only temporary poor and one day when they are finally on top they want to be able to stomp on those underneath them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_LvRPX0rGY

---

Temporarily impoverished millionaires.
---

M_Live posted...

I'd honestly believe that a large percentage are, being that so many of their votes come from poorer, rural areas, and those people vote against themselves unfortunately

They know what they're doing. Jesus and farm aid. Maybe also some xenophobia.

2016 exit polling shows that Trump did strongest among those making 50-100k, and worst among those making below that threshold

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Being poor and disliking redistribution (at least, you know, outside of ag subsidies), are not mutually exclusive.

How about being poor and wilfully supporting stockpilling and an increasing wealth divide year on year?

---

Antifar posted...

2016 exit polling shows that Trump did strongest among those making 50-100k, and worst among those making below that threshold

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Dude you of all people should know that even a 50-100k household is poor compared to what these budget proposals are supporting

That's why if you're in the 50-100k range you probably want to be supporting things like better education and better safety nets, and not like...Space Power Rangers

---

gop caters - at least in terms of lip service - to veterans, landowners/homeowners, small business operators, rural people

they're aware that they're not rich, and the myth of temporarily embarrassed millionaires is overstated; they do, however, see something to lose with respect to at least the caricature of urban democratic policy

• veterans - according to ones i've spoken with on political matters - consider the gop more generous with respect to benefits
• homeowners/landowners see their ability to pay mortgage compromised by tax hikes - though to be fair, gop elimination of tax credits screw them too
• small business operators are threatened by increases in corporate taxes - which affect far more than just large corporations - and complexities/tediousness of regulatory compliance
• rural republicans like to do what they like, and see democrats as inclined to police what they can do with their property

and of course you've got the evangelicals, but that's an entire discussion in itself

---

pinky0926 posted...

How about being poor and wilfully supporting stockpilling and an increasing wealth divide year on year?

The stereotypical rural republican has a bomb shelter full of rifles and beef jerky. It's really not too much of a stereotype.

They don't care how hard they're getting fucked as long as someone else is getting fucked harder

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

The stereotypical rural republican has a bomb shelter full of rifles and beef jerky. It's really not too much of a stereotype.

I get that but we're talking about how you vote, not what you do with your fallout bunker

---

pinky0926 posted...

I get that but we're talking about how you vote, not what you do with your fallout bunker

Who would want his rifles and jerky stockpile redistributed?

I do wish that political parties weren't such a package deal.

---

Heineken14 posted...

Temporarily impoverished millionaires.

Came here to say this.

---

DevsBro posted...

I do wish that political parties weren't such a package deal.

inevitable consequence of (state) democracy in general and (state) representative democracy in particular

statism as we know it is not conducive to atomized policymaking

---

TheMikh posted...

inevitable consequence of (state) democracy in general and (state) representative democracy in particular

statism as we know it is not conducive to atomized policymaking

That's why the original plan was states-ism.
...and then John Adams managed to fuck it up.

pinky0926 posted...

Dude you of all people should know that even a 50-100k household is poor compared to what these budget proposals are supporting

That's why if you're in the 50-100k range you probably want to be supporting things like better education and better safety nets, and not like...Space Power Rangers

wtf are you even talking about, median household income in the US is 59k so most people in that range are above that. plus cost of living varies from state to state, not everyone is living in NYC or the Bay Area

---

Antifar posted...

2016 exit polling shows that Trump did strongest among those making 50-100k, and worst among those making below that threshold

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I don't see anything describing verification so this is just self-reported numbers. Also householders could double vote 50k+ if two make 25k+.
---

I see someone's already doing the "but democrats" defense.

---

They dont realize a lot of things, give them a break.

---

A lot of those types love them some hierarchies and love justifying them. It's "survival of the fittest" to an extreme. Those rich people earned it in their eyes and anything they do is justified because they're "better". It's similar to the racist views of many of those types. I've always wondered if it's something in the brain from when mankind was more primitive that has carried over to some modern humans. I'm serious with that and not making a joke or calling people primitive. I'm legitimately curious.

Plus they're just bombarded with so much propaganda from both the pulpit and Fox News. Almost every public TV in any business or healthcare facility has FNs on their TVs.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

That's why the original plan was states-ism.
...and then John Adams managed to fuck it up.

a states-ist ethos is preferable to what we have now, but i'd go so far as to argue for strong county-ism

---

TheMikh posted...

a states-ist ethos is preferable to what we have now, but i'd go so far as to argue for strong county-ism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSU2XR5R5IY

Classist stereotyping smh
---

TheMikh posted...

a states-ist ethos is preferable to what we have now, but i'd go so far as to argue for strong county-ism

I thought you two were the same person.

A lot of states wouldn't survive without California, New York, and Texas.
---

who you callin poor buddy

---

TheMikh posted...

veterans - according to ones i've spoken with on political matters - consider the gop more generous with respect to benefits

hopefully the GOP isn't trumps lapdog when it comes next year, social security is being targeted with cuts (could be annual increases or the retirement age) no one knows.
---

pinky0926 posted...

just a question

pinky0926 topic.

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

A lot of states wouldn't survive without California, New York, and Texas.

Alabama would still exist. It would just have to restructure itself instead of suckling on mama federal's teat.

Romulox28 posted...

wtf are you even talking about, median household income in the US is 59k so most people in that range are above that. plus cost of living varies from state to state, not everyone is living in NYC or the Bay Area

how you defining poor, just south of average?

---

Most people don't vote based on their narrow self interests

---

No, YOU'RE the racist!

Channeling Republicans

---

They actually believe one day they'll be rich 'because they work hard', they're some of the laziest, overweight, unskilled demographic in America right now. Also they confuse 'because we work hard' with 'we're white and we deserve it, it's our country' all of the time.

---

pinky0926 posted...

how you defining poor, just south of average?

say someone's household income is $60k in the US, that is well above the median household income, you are past all the thresholds for benefits such as SNAP, etc. this income probably wouldnt fly for a family in Southern California, but if you lived in Pennsylvania or something for example you could easily afford a mortgage, family etc.

---

Regardless of your views on whether someone making more than median income is poor in any commonly understood sense of that term, the fact that he performed worst among those making the least should be telling.
---

Romulox28 posted...

say someone's household income is $60k in the US, that is well above the median household income, you are past all the thresholds for benefits such as SNAP, etc. this income probably wouldnt fly for a family in Southern California, but if you lived in Pennsylvania or something for example you could easily afford a mortgage, family etc.

60k translates to like 45k take-home

mortgage or a family is doable, but not both, i wouldn't call either particularly affordable after other expenses

edit: unless the spouse is working and making at least average income as well i guess

---

twitterfriends posted...

They actually believe one day they'll be rich 'because they work hard', they're some of the laziest, overweight, unskilled demographic in America right now. Also they confuse 'because we work hard' with 'we're white and we deserve it, it's our country' all of the time.

That making your own way in life and not having to rely on others being viewed as a negative is why a lot this generation is so bitter and angsty. Hopefully Gen Z can pick up the baton millennials left laying on the track and finish the race.

People should absolutely have available help when they need. My family has taken advantage of the programs that were available to us based on what my income was through the past years. Even now my boys have state provided health care based on my income now and saves me a lot of money not having to do it through my job. But my goal is not have to rely. If my wife could work full time or even part time, we'd be paying out of pocket for their healthcare. Which is fine.


---

Antifar posted...

Regardless of your views on whether someone making more than median income is poor in any commonly understood sense of that term, the fact that he performed worst among those making the least should be telling.

I pointed out problems with the poll you posted that you haven't addressed.
---

You can live very comfortably off $50k+. Not poor.

---

TheMikh posted...

60k translates to like 45k take-home

mortgage or a family is doable, but not both, i wouldn't call either particularly affordable after other expenses

edit: unless the spouse is working and making at least average income as well i guess

you'd take home like $4k a month, idk why you couldnt afford a house & family if you budget

---

Poverty in the US is decreasing and we have the highest median wages in the world (save like two countries) with a very progressive tax system. The fact is that most people, especially the ones who vote, aren't poor.

Romulox28 posted...

you'd take home like $4k a month, idk why you couldnt afford a house & family if you budget

~3.7k
house, utilities, property taxes eat at least half of that, more depending on home size and area

food, gas, other living expenses, emergency expenses consume the rest, with a little room for savings

you'll get by, but not supporting a spouse and children

---

They think they'll be rich one day.

---

I mentioned this in a similar topic, but I think there are things other than material goods that people can care about.

People can disagree ideologically with programs that might benefit them. People might disagree on various methods on how to benefit them and others. Even within Democrats there are good faith differing opinions on how to do societal changes

It seems bad to only think of financial aspects of why someone would vote a certain way.

Now, I think people are bad at times at knowing what they want and do vote non ideologically and materially negative for themselves due to being confused.

Hell, some of the reasons some dislike these various programs is probably due to bad or false rhetoric that they've just grown up around. And that's bad.

But like, people can and should care about more than just what they may receive materially.
---