Why would anyone vote Democrat this midterms?

Thank you! I enjoyed the Pew Research Center article you cited, and I actually read ALL of it, several times, including this paragraph:

"In late 2018, 84% of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party said they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in college and university professors to act in the best interests of the public. Only about half (48%) of Republicans and Republican leaners said the same. In fact, 19% of Republicans said they have no confidence at all in college professors to act in the public interest. And in early 2019, 87% of Democrats – but fewer than half (44%) of Republicans – said colleges and universities are open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints."

And these paragraphs were especially informative (my emphasis added):

"Among those who say higher education is headed in the wrong direction, some of the reasons why they think this is the case differ along party lines. Majorities of Republicans (77%) and Democrats (92%) say high tuition costs are a major reason why they believe colleges and universities are headed in the wrong direction.

Democrats who see problems with the higher education system cite rising costs more often than other factors as a major reason for their concern, while Republicans are just as likely to point to other issues as reasons for their discontent. Roughly eight-in-ten Republicans (79%) say professors bringing their political and social views into the classroom is a major reason why the higher education system is headed in the wrong direction (only 17% of Democrats say the same). And three-quarters of Republicans (vs. 31% of Democrats) point to too much concern about protecting students from views they might find offensive as a major reason for their views."

My take? Republicans, and Conservatives, seem to be mostly concerned about the heavily-biased politicization pushed by many college professors, but, by contrast, Democrats seem to focus only on how much college costs (and, by extrapolation, WHO is going to pay for it). So, yes, is there 'negative' sentiment about many colleges and universities held by Republicans and other Conservatives? Sure. And there are REASONS for that sentiment besides merely being 'against education' as you seem to postulate.

Next, you dismiss my request that you 'show your work' for making statements claiming that Democrats create more jobs. I asked you only for raw information germane to Democrat policies and practices apart from normal ebbs and flows in the economic cycles, given supplemental augmenting circumstances (COVID viruses, etc.). Your response is that I'm not worth responding to, and that I should go google it up. Well, Pro, as you say down South, "that dog don't hunt". When you make broad, undocumented claims like that, you need to provide some support for them, or you come off looking like just another person with an opinion. And opinions, per se, are like buttholes, Pro... everybody's got one!




search recall marker

 

It's OK, Patricio. What passes for 'English' in the United States today, spoken and written, is mostly an execrable, inexact, fluff-laden pile of largely-incoherent crap, often spoken with the nerve-grating characteristic "up-talking" lilt that drives me fugging CRAZY! "Sung" is actually incorrect as it was used, but I'll defend to the death your right to use it that way!

 

Which is how the GOP wants to portray education and higher education, - which is what I said earlier. There has been a concentrated effort to demonize them, which explains the sudden change in past few years. Either way, do you think Dems would pay such high price to attend college if their plan is to not work but just live off of welfare. It doesn't add up.

It turns out they have no plans to live on welfare, and they actually like high paying jobs as much as everyone else

JOBS BY DEMOCRATIC VS. REPUBLICAN
Job Title ............... Dem .........Rep
Physician............... 58.5%....... 41.5%
Realtor................... 46.7% .......53.3%
Administrator........... 73.9%...... 26.1%
Chief Finance Officer. 43.1% .....56.9%
Finance Advisor ........35.9%...... 64.1%
Scientist.....................88.4% .......11.6%
Analyst ......................73.6% .......26.4%
Pharmacist ................52.4%....... 47.6%
Principal ....................57.5%....... 42.5%
Psychologist ...............89.1% .......10.9%
Software Developer... 83.9%....... 16.1%
Program Manager...... 74.2% .......25.8%
Administrative Assistant .64.6%... 35.4%
Musician ....................86.6% .......13.4%
Programmer ................76.5%....... 23.5%
Editor......................... 91.9%....... 8.1%
Developer ..................51.8%....... 48.2%
Surgeon ....................41.3% .......58.7%
Investment Banker ....45.6%....... 54.4%
Real Estate Investor ...41.6%....... 58.4%
Paralegal.................... 78.2% .......21.8%
Managing Partner .......51.6% .......48.4%
Founder....................... 68.2% .......31.8%
Instructor ....................76.8% .......23.2%
Physical Therapist....... 65.1% .......34.9%
Product Manager .........90.6%....... 9.4%
Operations Manager ....57.3% .......42.7%
Insurance Broker .........38.6%....... 61.4%
Optometrist ..................45.1%....... 54.9%
Computer Programmer 73.4% .......26.6%

 

I would do it (if I were a US citizen) to tell Trump to go to hell and to remind the GOP to revert to where they were in the Reagan era. Realistic, conservative Americans, not conspiracy-believing idiots, QAnon fans nor enemies of democracy.

If I were a US citizen, i would be one of this guys: https://rvat.org/

 

Republican's policy is yesterday's solution. Tommorrow's independence will come from alternative energy.

that's rich, given:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

Inflation has been 2.6% average under both dem and repub admins for years.
then came the pandemic, and there is more inflation in Brazil and UK, which are both conservative governments.

Dems want a strong military.
Repubs want a bloated military.

War in Ukraine is responsible for the high energy prices and oil companies gouging the public becauase of it.

Dems favor a windfall profits tax.

Repubs want More for the rich, less for the poor.

 

I was in West Germany on the day that Ronald Reagan won our presidency, and I can tell you that although the Germans I knew were very concerned that Reagan would start a war with the Soviet Union almost immediately, we Americans were OVERJOYED! It was the beginning of what would be the best time for our country in my long lifetime!

 

As overjoyed as Americans were when Trump was voted out.

 

define "bloated military".

 

New Yorkers are afraid to walk their streets or take the subway. LA is rife with crime. People are afraid and businesses are leaving. You equate a protest in DC where the only person killed was an unarmed protester shot by a cop with mothers holding their children are assaulted and old men are murdered in broad daylight? Strange...
So Biden's 9.6% inflation had nothing to do with his stopping oil pipelines? Stopping issuance of drilling licenses? Discouraging fracking? Raising taxes on oil produced from wells on federal lands? You really believe that?
Dems want a weakened military. From reducing funding to giving away our weapons by the billions of dollars...
War in Ukraine causes our high gas prices? LOLOL... so how did we have such cheap gas for decades when Ukraine was part of the USSR and we never got a drop from them?
Dems prefer ANY tax. Dems never met a tax they didn't like.
Repubs want more for the rich? Is that why Trump's tax cuts reduced EVERY RATE? Is that why his tax cuts made interest rates on college loans deductible?

 

I have published works, and I use grammarly for it. But, not here, it wouldn't be appreciated, anyway.

 

Your post makes me think of a child, telling his parents they're being cruel to him, by not letting him eat all the candy that he wants.

FYI-- addressing Global Warming IS what's in the best interests of "the little guy," even if many are too short-sighted, to realize it.

 

While cool looking those kinds of charts mean very little.

What makes you think we have a clue as to how much the Chinese or Russians spend on their military?

 

When gas was 33 cents minimum wage was $1.60 and my rent was $80 month.
so, I'm not going to even bother getting into the weeds of this argument, because I"m certain your claim's premise is flawed.

Gas price doubled relatively quickly corresponding to SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA.

Ukraine didn't cause it directly, the war in Ukraine caused US to SANCTION SEVERELY Russia, which caused the price to hike.

During USSR, there weren't any sanctions (not like they are now)

Hey, AARGuy, you're not a dem, so don't tell me what a dem wants.

We want taxes to remain high on those who can afford the tax, the rich.

The huge portion of the benefits of the tax cut with to the rich. They didn't have to do that. THe rich were rich and didn't need more money , and that he did it caused the deficit to soar. Financing that deficit also contributed to inflation.

Inflation is worse in Brazil and UK, both conservative governments, so, the answer is NO. The answer is the world wide pandemic causing supply chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine.

Dems consider this a bit much, so excuse me.

 

The chart's sourcing is listed, query the source.

 

That the "huge portion of the benefit of the tax cut went to the rich IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
Inflation is bad in Brazil? Who cares? Inflation is worse in UK? Who cares? I don't live there. I live in the USA. Telling me that something is worse somewhere else doesn't ease the pain HERE AT ALL. NOT ONE IOTA. "Hey, don't worry about that car that just hit you and broke your back... at least you aren't DEAD like the other guy that was hit". Is that sort of response supposed to HELP?

You really believe that Biden's actions didn't cause our inflation? You really believe that his raising taxes on oil from wells on federal lands, discouraging fracking, stopping pipelines, ending drilling licenses and now stopping offshore drilling didn't cause our inflation? Really? If so, we need to talk. I have this great deal for you. Its a bridge. Well trafficked, In Brooklyn. Cash only.

 

NO, but it does prove that it isn't a liberal government causing inflation when inflation is worse in conservatives nations.

That was the point you missed.

The inflation is world wide, and no way in hell can world wide inflation be caused by Biden.

That is proof. Your's is talk.

This article written two years after the tax cut

It's a total failure.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/


On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed into law the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), a $1.9 trillion tax bill favoring corporations and wealthy Americans. At its heart is a large cut in the corporate tax rate. “Corporations are literally going wild over this,” Trump said upon signing the bill. He predicted that the corporate tax cut would cause a boom in business investment and that factories are “not going to be abandoned any longer.” His White House, meanwhile, estimated that the corporate tax cuts would trickle down to workers in the form of a $4,000 annual raise.

Two years later, however, business investment is actually declining. Factory closings and mass layoffs have not ended. Wage growth is tepid, despite the continuation of the economic expansion that began 10 years ago, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth is slowing and projected to revert to its long-term trend or below. Meanwhile, budget deficits are higher due to revenue losses—which have largely been triggered by the massive corporate tax cut at the heart of the TCJA. Nevertheless, earlier this month, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told a gathering of CEOs that the Trump administration will seek to cut the corporate tax rate further if the president gains a second term in office.

[...]

The TCJA tax cuts aren’t working
One of the core arguments for the TCJA’s dramatic corporate tax cuts claimed that the tax cuts would spur a boom in investments that would increase worker productivity, such as new factories or equipment. These investments would then increase economic output, and workers would be able to capture the benefit by bargaining for higher wages. But the first link in this flawed chain of reasoning has already broken. Businesses have not massively increased investment; in fact, growth in nonresidential fixed investment has been on a downward trend since the beginning of 2018, just after the TCJA’s passage. Part of this decrease in business investment is likely due to President Trump’s ill-considered tariff policies. But experts warned of this outcome even before the enactment of the TCJA, emphasizing that corporate access to capital was in no short supply: In 2017, interest rates had been low for a decade; after-tax profits were already near all-time highs; and corporations had record amounts of cash on hand. There was no real indication that corporations faced serious liquidity constraints that prohibited them from making investments to begin with, or that changes in the corporate tax rate would have a major impact on investment.

Yet, as critics also warned, the TCJA did not lead to these types of investments. Upon the bill’s passage, corporations began funneling their extra tax windfall to shareholders instead. A recent analysis from the International Monetary Fund found that the top S&P 500 companies directed just 20 percent of their increased cashflow toward capital expenditures or research and development, while putting the other 80 percent toward buybacks, dividends, and other asset planning adjustments. These types of expenditures overwhelmingly benefit foreign investors and the wealthy, who own the majority of corporate stocks.

The long-term trickle-down effects that proponents of corporate tax cuts predicted can only be borne out if corporations dramatically boost necessary investments—and even then, the benefits for workers are uncertain because workers would only realize them to the extent they were successful in bargaining for their share of the gains.

The tax cuts have not led to increased economic competitiveness
Another core argument of TCJA proponents was that the law’s tax cuts would help improve economic competitiveness. Requiring U.S. corporations to pay less tax on their profits would give them a leg up over firms in other countries with higher tax rates. Even before the TCJA, however, effective corporate tax rates were in line with major trading partners, and the United States raised less revenue from corporate taxes than most other peer countries. In 2017, only four countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) raised revenue from corporations as a share of GDP at a lower rate than the United States; by 2018, there was only one. Because of the TCJA, the United States now collects only 1 percent of GDP in corporate tax revenue—just one-third of the OECD average and far less than neighbors Canada and Mexico, which collect 3.7 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively. (see Figure 2) Part of the reason the United States ranks so low is that a larger share of business income is earned by noncorporate businesses that are not subject to any corporate tax; their profits pass through to their owners, who pay tax on that income as individuals. So-called pass-through business income also received large tax cuts in the TCJA.

 

If you click your heels together several times and repeat there's no place like home it might become true.

 

I have published works, too. And, believe me, I have made my share of grammatical mistakes (but at least I admit them). But my 'Achilles heel' in English was and has always been spelling... and yet I always scored "A's" on my spelling tests in German.

Anyway, as differently as you and I think, it's probably better that I 'spar' with you over things of greater importance than "sang" versus "sung". I brought that up only because I was being a snot, and thought I'd snipe at you a bit. But, in future I'll try to 'paint the wider canvas'. Considering how miserable the next two years are going to be in the United States, I fear that none of us will be 'singing' anything but the blues....

. ♫ "Lost my job, life's a wreck, and all I got is a WELFARE CHECK...." ♪

 

Uh-huh... and then what did we get...? BIDEN...?!

And even if one day in the near future Geriatric Joe accidentally falls off the stage one last time and doesn't get back up, what are we stuck with...? Kamala-la-la, the great savior of our Southern border...?!

. "OK, White boys -- lassen wir jetzt VIEL spaß haben, ja...?!"



search recall marker

 

It was good, although it had its ups and downs. I have never felt overjoyed over a politician. The whole idea of idolizing a person is alien to me. So 80s was good, but 1990s far better economically. I don't think we'll repeat that again in my lifetime.

 

I'll agree that the 90's were good overall, but I remember the 80's with even greater appreciation, maybe just from a selfish, personal perspective because I did quite well during that decade... but so did nearly everyone in the United States. Then along came the 'fugged-up-foursome' of "Deer-in-the-headlights" Bush, "Messiah" Obama, "It's-all-about-me" Trump, and now, "Geriatric Joe", everybody's favorite Democrat talking-head rubber-stamp and stooge.

Needless to say, after seeing what the midterm election results have brought us, we're in for a thoroughly miserable, protracted political slug-fest for the next two years -- and this fact is not (NOT) lost on either Russia or China....

. "When they elect idiots like Fetterman to be senators, you know their end is near...!"




search recall marker

 

Why should it be miserable? You said you liked 80s because of the economy? Well, this kind of grid lock is good for the economy. House and WH can argue all day long, while the rest of the country moves forward. It has no effect on foreign policy, so who cares about what Russia and China think about it. You seem to have a negative view no matter what the scenario is.

 

Actually, I hope you're right, but I can see Putin and Xi running wild all over the planet during the next two years while we sit over here engaged in our endless, destructive political 'trench warfare'. I can't prove that Republicans taking over majority positions in both houses of Congress would have changed anything, but if Democrats continue to have smothering rule (or veto power) for the next two years, our international situation will probably go from fairly 'bad' to 'DIRE'....

After all, as 'Messiah' Obama famously said...

... and was Afghanistan just a foretaste...?

 

This scenario has repeated countless times, but what were you hoping for? GOP lose? Thats the only scenario where we would NOT have a gridlock.