posted
At my daughter's gymnastics class, I sit with several moms who have kids in the class, and we have gotten to be pretty chummy, and look forward to our weekly chats while our kids are learning to do cartwheels and walk on the balance beam and all that.
In our little group is me, three black women, and one Asian. This week, the conversation was mostly on politics.
We got around to who voted for who and why, and I thought it might be worth sharing some of the comments, because I remember Irami posting after the election that the democratic party had lost too many mothers this time. These is some first-hand comments that might shed some light on why.
Background: Socio-economics on all four of us are probably pretty similar. We all live in the same general area, not the same exact neighborhoods, but within a 10 mile range of each other. We are all in solid middle class suburban areas. Our kids all go to public schools, not the same ones, my child is in a different county from the others. The other moms are in Jefferson county, and that school system is generally regarded as being better than my own. One other mom is stay-at-home like me, the others work. We're all married and have kids. All of us voted for Bush.
All of us are involved in our churches, Lecia is the music director for hers. All said they respected Bush for his outspokeness about his faith. I asked if the fact that Kerry was Catholic entered into their minds, and Jeri (who I love to death, she actually talks more than me which is a rarity) said: "It doesn't matter if you're Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Catholic, Pentecostal, whatever, I don't care. But I'm not going to vote for a man that doesn't respect my faith." The general consensus was that Kerry only talked about religion to garner votes, whereas Bush was a man who really lived his faith. They don't like the direction the courts have taken - the challenges on the Pledge of Allegiance, the removal of the 10 commandments from courthouses, etc. - they feel like Christianity is under attack, and they think Bush is more likely to protect their rights to worship.
Another big issue - abortion. These moms are pro-life. I got the feeling that they could accept a candidate who was pro-choice to a degree, but Kerry not supporting a ban on partial-birth abortion, which Lecia described as "sticking a pair of scissors into a baby's brain" really hurt him.
They didn't like Teresa Heinz-Kerry. I don't know how much this influenced their vote, but they did bring it up and talk about it. They found her rude, and "mean" and didn't want her as a first lady. I brought up the comment about Laura Bush never having a real job - which she later retracted saying she had forgotten Laura Bush worked as a teacher and school librarian, and the comment made, again by Jeri was "What does some ketchup millionaire know about real work, anyway?"
The war only came up briefly, and we got sidetracked into talking about all our family members that were in the military. I never found out how many supported the war, or thought Iraq had WMD's, or any other issues. I know that all of us but one has a close family member in the military: either a father, brother-in-law, cousin, or nephew.
I was already thinking about posting the tidbits of the talk on hatrack, so I decided to get down to brass tacks and outright ask a question. I asked "So why did you vote Republican? I mean, aren't minorities supposed to be the democrat's base?"
It was the incomparable Jeri who spoke first. I'll try to quote this as exactly as I can. "What has the democratic party ever done for me? I get up every morning and go to work and can't hardly pay my house note for the taxes. You think I want to put the democrats in charge so they can raise them even more?"
Lecia then said, sarcastically, "But the democrats only want to tax the rich, you know."
To which she said "I'm the rich! I don't live in the projects so I'm rich. When he talks about the rich, he means me! I can't hardly pay my bills, but I'm rich.
My Mamma and Grandmamma always say 'vote Democrat, vote Democrat, democrats care about you' They been voting democrat all their life and they still living in Ensley" (referring to a high crime, low income area of the city that is predominantly black)
"Didn't anyone help me, didn't anyone care about me - I got out of there because I went to school and I got off my butt and went to work. They still sitting there, waiting on some democrat to give them a new house." At this everybody laughed, and then we got started on something else, (Louisiana gumbo and whose mother makes it more spicy, to be exact) and then it was time to get our kids and go.
Now, I didn't start this thread so people could attack the views of these women - they aren't here to explain themselves or elaborate on their statements as I've reported them. I started it because I thought it would be interesting for you to "eavesdrop" on a conversation. Whether or not the women are correct about any of this isn't the issue - the issue is they think they are correct, and they voted accordingly.
So, can the democratic party ever win back the south - which is heavily populated with women just like these? If they do, they will have to address the concerns of these women - they care about protecting their way of worship that they think is under attack, they care about abortion, and they care about how much money is cut from their checks. They don't vote democratic because their parents and grandparents always did. The democratic party needs to address them - see to their needs, if it hopes to win them back. Three of the five of us voted for Bill Clinton. (no I wasn't one)
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if the democratic party came to a "softer" stance on abortion, maybe banning late term abortions, and made it clear that the rights of people to worship was a priority for them and that they respected those rights, and adopted a tax policy that didn't lean heavily on the middle and upper class - you wouldn't support them, Tom?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. Interestingly, I think the Democratic Party has for the most part already done all these things, but your four female friends have been suckered by the Republican machine into not recognizing it. (Note that I think tax policy will ALWAYS lean heavily on the upper and middle class, and should. If anything, I believe we aren't taxing the upper class heavily enough anymore.)
posted
I know this is going to sound confrontational, but what would they say if they found out Bush rarely goes to church?
EDIT: I take back the above, it appears he does go to some churches, and it is unclear if he goes often or not.
The bit about "Who's rich, I'm rich!" Is a classic misconception in our society. There's some silly stat that 40% of us think we are in the top 5% of the income bracket (or something similarly silly). The easy question would be whether she makes over 200k, because that was the cutoff Kerry had long been promoting as the line to raise taxes.
I think the whole "worked my butt off" argument SHOULD be taken notice by Democrats.
posted
I think I know where she's coming from with the "I'm rich" argument. People whose household incomes are 60,000 plus do get taxed very heavily, but 60,000 doesn't buy you a rich lifestyle.
They see themselves as struggling to take care of their families, paying a high mortgage so they can live in a good school district, and their 60,000 doesn't go very far. Yet, compared to family members that still live in places like Ensley, they are "rich." And those family members don't understand the struggle to make ends meet on a salary like that, so when the family members say the "rich should pay more" they are referring to people like Jeri.
Jeri doesn't see herself as rich - she was reacting to the way others perceive her.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"People whose household incomes are 60,000 plus do get taxed very heavily, but 60,000 doesn't buy you a rich lifestyle."
Oddly, Christy and I make that much, but I don't feel like we're laboring under an unreasonable tax burden -- except our property tax, which in Wisconsin is pretty ridiculous, but that's not the federal government's fault. Perhaps part of it is that we're living well within our means, having found an area with a decent school district that doesn't cost an arm and a leg for housing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What have the Democrats done for her? Well, lets see, a good chunk of the tax cuts that have occurred so far were parts of democratic tax cut plans, and almost certainly all of the ones which benefited her. So every tax cut she's received under the Bush administration would likely have happened under a democratic administration.
Actually, the Dems also had a big cash back proposal in that got cut, so she would likely have gotten more. Oh, and while Bush has no plans to pass more tax cuts, there are oodles of tax cuts from the originals which haven't gone into effect yet, and most benefit the rich (where rich means much more than her income) almost exclusively.
Or then there's property taxes. Those're local/state, so I don't know which parties are influencing them how on that level, but I can tell you why they're unlikely to be cut anytime in the near future: the state programs most funded by property taxes are those that have been most impacted by the additional federal bureaucracy Bush has been forcing onto the states and localities.
If she's going to vote with her pocketbook, she should reconsider which side has her pocketbook in mind.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and Tom - the democratic party hasn't at all tried to win pro-life voters.
As for the taxes, you're right in that the tax burden will always lean on the middle and upper class, I should have worded that differently.
I think the main concern is that they see themselves (or at least Jeri did) as having gotten out of bad circumstances by hard work. Now, she's making good money, has a husband and nice home and lives in a great school district and she is still struggling to make ends meet. She doesn't want to pay more taxes, and thinks that democrats in power will mean higher taxes for people in her situation.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except she's not voting with her pocketbook. It sounds like she's voting with her church, and rationalizing the pocketbook thing after the fact. And until Democrats start sacrificing babies to Jesus on the steps of the capitol, I don't think the party has a snowball's chance in Hell -- pun intended -- of out-pandering the Republicans on that issue.
---
"She doesn't want to pay more taxes, and thinks that democrats in power will mean higher taxes for people in her situation."
Then she is ignorant, and did not do enough research. The Democratic Party does not need to change its policies, then, but rather its means of communicating those policies.
posted
But the Democrats don't need to outdo Republicans, they just need to stop being actively anti-Christian, which a great number of the more vocal Democrats are.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, if you think your burden is not so bad, you can take up some of mine anytime.
$60,000 was a figure I just threw out for illustration - I don't know how much these people make. I also don't know what figures are considered "middle-class" or "upper middle class" or any of that.
Fugu - you may be right in your analysis - but obviously that information didn't get communicated to the voters in a convincing way.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I also don't know what figures are considered 'middle-class' or 'upper middle class' or any of that."
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that most of the people who voted for Bush don't know the answer to that question, either. Heck, I imagine most people who voted don't know the answer to that question. *laugh*
posted
I believe a figure Kerry repeated was that his proposal would only raise taxes on those earning over $300,000 a year. While one can debate whether or not that's a good thing, it pretty clearly wouldn't apply to this woman.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Answered my own question at factcheck.org. There is no standard definition of middle class, but the national median income was around $43,000 in 2003. for their purposes, factcheck called middle income $25,000-$75,000.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my American Government had rich at 70,000 or something stupid. Personally, I'm not much for punishing the rich and making them pay more for their basic income. It's the bonuses that should be taxed into nonexistence.
My dad's power plant had a round of layoffs that saved the company about 2 million a year. The same year, they gave the CEO a 10 million dollar bonus for not retireing. O_o
I've never understood the Democratic idea that people who did well for themselves should have a large chunk of their money taken away from them. Then we should give that money to people who can't get off the couch and get a job.
The poor are usually only poor temporarily. Trash are poor forever, no matter how much money we throw at them.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldn't surprise me at all if some or all of these women made more than $75,000 when you consider the median price for a home in the areas around the gymnastics studio is probably really close to $200,000 or maybe even more, depending on the neighborhood.
I know what Kerry said, by the way, but I don't trust campaign promises by ANY candidate. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone in the upper class (which we're defining as $75,000+) to think that Republicans are more likely to NOT raise taxes on them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government defines "classes" essentially through the creation of tax brackets. In reality, though, what constitutes "middle class" depends heavily on the cost of living in any given area. (This is why people who meet the federal standard of "upper class" -- $200K+ -- often self-identify as merely "upper middle class;" when you factor in the cost of their homes and cars and other lifestyle elements, they often feel like they're just "scraping by" with two SUVs. George Bush the elder, in the '80s, once defined "middle class" as $50,000 or higher, at a time when 80% of the country made less than that -- but I suspect that to live in his neighborhood on $50K would be difficult indeed.)
In general, the "middle class" starts at around $33K household income for a family of four. The "upper middle class" starts around $60K for a family of four. And the "rich" are generally those making $200K or more.
There's a category for the "super-rich" being floated out there, to distinguish the well-off from the ones who genuinely don't ever need to worry about money except for the purposes of scorekeeping, but I don't think the government recognizes that in any way.
The best breakdown I've seen categorizes the "upper class" as the top 3% of wage earners, the "super-rich" as the top .5%, the "middle class" as being the next 50% of the break-down, the "working class" as the next 20%, and the genuine "poor" as the remainder. This actually appears to be a useful metric when measuring financial "inequality," especially when income levels at those points are adjusted for inflation and cost of living.
posted
Usually, they just had some kind of set back, a layoff, a disablity, and now they've worked their way back out of it. I'm just trying to point out that I believe there are two different kinds of poor. One deserves our help. The other doesn't want help.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the Democrats, you pay through the nose up front for the programs and initiatives.
With the Republicans, you pay through the nose later on, usually with a fair chunk of interest tacked on.
Whether it is now or later, both groups just basically tax us as far as they can without driving themselves out of office. There is a game played with "will they squeal if we charge them 26%... okay, what about 25.5%... 25.35%???"
And let's face it, any time they cut away at the budget, they still mandate the programs go on, leaving states, counties and municipalities to foot the bill.
But the ladies were right, for the time being at least, what have the Democrats done that speaks positively to them?
At least with the Republicans, they can point to some hopes of protecting their faith and stance on the abortion issue. Of course, there probably won't be too much done on either of those... I'm afraid that it is just lip service.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you name a vocally anti-Christian Democratic politician?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that generally if you talk to say, the Campus Democrats, they come off as being very anti Christian. Heck, I went to a callout for the ACLU which talked very openly about going out to protest to "shut up those pro-life Christians." It's very easy to believe that your politicians are anti Christian when many of their most vocal supporters that you meet every day are.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good question to ask, then, might be why the Republicans aren't reaching out to those people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The top fifth of U.S. households, those with earnings of more than $84,000, pay 82.5 percent of federal income taxes and two thirds of all federal taxes.
Oh wait, considering how much of the country's tax burden I bear, I don't know if it's worth celebrating or not....
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should they? Both parties simply give up on certain groups. Democrats give up on the upper class, Republicans give up on the minority of anti Christian voters, and they are a minority, just a vocal one. The problem is that that minority drives away a lot of Christians that would be swing voters and only needed one issue to drive them to one side or the other.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Democrats give up on the upper class, Republicans give up on the minority of anti Christian voters, and they are a minority, just a vocal one."
Intriguingly, the Democrats are not overwhelmingly rejected by the upper class as much as you might think. Nor, for that matter, is every atheist a Democrat; I believe the Pixiest is in fact passionately anti-Democrat, because she hates Social Security more than she hates Jesus. *laugh*
But yeah, I'll agree that the Republicans, beginning in the early '80s, were smart enough under Reed's tutelage to identify that Christian bias was a major motivator and began pandering to religious groups far more effectively than the Democrats did.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever Slash talks about how much he makes, he does it with class. I wonder how he does that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's because we can't see him flashing the bling-bling over the Internet. But I hear when he does it in person, he pulls his shirt open with one diamond-encrusted hand to reveal chest hair gilded with the purest gold. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather suspect, Belle, that there could also be a sentence which reads something like "those with earnings of more than $200,000, pay 75 percent of federal income taxes and three fifths of all federal taxes."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's because we can't see him flashing the bling-bling over the Internet. But I hear when he does it in person, he pulls his shirt open with one diamond-encrusted hand to reveal chest hair gilded with the purest gold.
That was my and Lead's favorite part of his visit to Dallas.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my perspective, Bush's fiscal policies are making it so that the tax burden on your children and your children's children will be incredibly oppressive compared to what we have now.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not classlessly flaunting anything, kat despite what you think.
In fact, I make nothing. Well, I have made $300 in the last four and a half years from my writing. And maybe a total of $500 in the last year from selling items on Ebay.
I have a husband who works very hard to provide for our family - and I happen to love him and I'm proud of him.
I was trying to make a point about the tax burden - not talk about how much my family makes, because quite frankly, you don't have any idea how much we really make or how we live. I could just be making a point, and in fact we make less than $40,000 a year. Or maybe we make over $100,000 a year. You don't know - and neither does anybody else. In fact, a lot of people look at our house and think we make quite a bit. What they don't know is my husband built the house, doing much of the work himself, and consquently we paid way less than market value. That's the only reason we have the size house we do in the neighborhood we live in.
Be careful when you snarkily try to judge people when you don't know the facts. If you really want to know (and I can't think why you would) you can get some of them. My husband is a firefighter for the city of birmingham you can go look up the salary it's public record. He's a lieutenant with 10 years of experience. That info will get you his exact salary.
That doesn't tell you the whole story, because we also own a business that supplements our income, but it will give you a starting point.
You'll find that lietenant's salary doesn't even approach $84,000.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* I don't think kat meant either of us, Belle, and we both listed our salaries here. Unless she's one of those people who takes salaries really personally. We have one of those here at work, and I've never understood her aversion to the concept that maybe not everyone makes the same amount.
posted
Random question: How high are taxes in America compared to Canada? I was always under the impression they were higher in Canada, especially factoring in sales taxes.
Is it the fact that although they are higher here free health care, etc, helps ease the blow?
posted
I just can't help thinking that Bush's current policies are not really benefiting the poor and middle class. Most of his tax cuts are aimed at people who really don't need tax cuts. So it seems that a lot of programs are being cut like to the library (which is why I can't seem to get a job there. When I ask about it they tell me there is a hiring freeze) or to museums and various social programs I unfortunetly need. Like section 8 housing is being threaten with cuts. I don't know if you know what a disaster this will be for a lot of low income people, including me. The only way I can survive on my crappy job is because my rent is cheap. Of course one could simply just say something irratately cynical, but, if it helps to keep people from becoming homeless and frees up a large chunk of income for other purchases isn't that better than complaining about homelessness and yet cutting things to help them to benefit people who don't really need it in my eyes? There is no way I could ever vote for these people. No way...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People talking about how much they make when it isn't necessary for the conversation reminds me of an Edith Wharton or Jane Austen novel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the top 5th may pay the top 82.5% of taxes, but I bet (as fugu alluded to) that the top 10% of the top 5th pay 90% of the 82.5%.
It sounds good, but the reality is, you simply aren't being gouged as badly as the pro-free market heritage foundation would have you think. It's that cherry-picking thing again.
posted
Hm. See, in this case I think both specific incomes mentioned were relevant to the conversation. And since no one here is comparing penis size or the equivalent, I don't see the problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont' understand people who get twisted out of shape over it either. When I worked at UAB, all salaries were posted, and I knew several co-workers who went and looked up what everyone in our department made.
I didn't because it didn't seem productive - all it did was give them something to bitch about.
Except in the cases of professional athletes and the corporate fat cats, I generally believe that people who make more than I do(or did, rather) deserved to. Usually it's because they either work harder, have more education, or took more risks, like starting a business. If I wanted more money I could get it - by either furthering my education (which I'm doing now) or by working harder.
If I can presume to speak for her, I think that was part of what my friend Jeri was trying to say when we were talking. Instead of sitting around whining, get out and make something of yourself. She did, and she is frustrated with people who continue in their circumstances without putting forth the same kind of effort.
Right or wrong, a lot of people view the democratic party as the entitlement party. It's the party that will give you money for doing nothing. That's the perception. And once you do make something of yourself, the democrats punish you by taxing you to death to support the people who don't want to work.
Now, I know it's not that simplistic, but my point is the democratic party hasn't done a very good job communicating what they are really about to voters. They have a perception, like the one above, and until the democratic party changes that they are in really big trouble. As has already been shown, you need more than the left coast and the liberal northeast to win the presidency.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They have a perception, like the one above, and until the democratic party changes that they are in really big trouble."
Oh, I agree. The problem is, though, I don't know how the Dems can do any better of a job by arguing the facts; the facts were tried, and weren't convincing enough.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's off topic. I'm just musing now.
Did no one else get this ingrained in them? That it's absolutely not polite to talk about how much your family makes? And the more your family makes, the more gauche it is to talk about it?
I'm sure it's a product of training. When I was growing up, of the big topics, we discussed sex and health fairly openly, race and politics during discussions dedicated to it only, and money in budget sessions alone.
posted
I should add, that most of my circle of friends and acquaintances are firefighter families too. we pretty much know what everybody makes - like in the case of my best friend she is a public school teacher and her husband's a firefighter.
If I wanted to I could find out their exact income, and I already know what it is approximately since I've been looking at public school salaries myself.
It's just not a big deal in my family or social environment. When someone mentions they got a raise, usually the first question is "How much?" I don't see salary as something to be kept secret or ashamed of or hidden away so you don't offend somebody. It's part of life, and I'm used to talking about it.
If that's not the case for most people, and they do see me talking about salaries as rude, then I can only say rudeness was not my intent and hope they understand.
My post back to kat was snarky in its own right - and a bit immature. I guess I was reacting to what I thought was a stab directed at me. If she just thinks discussing salaries in general is rude and wasn't attacking me, then I'm sorry. We have different definitions of what is rude.
posted
"Did no one else get this ingrained in them? That it's absolutely not polite to talk about how much your family makes? And the more your family makes, the more gauche it is to talk about it?"
It may be, Katie, that your family made enough to make it really gauche, whereas none of the rest of us came from a family rich enough for it to be gauche enough to mention. j/k
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nor, for that matter, is every atheist a Democrat; I believe the Pixiest is in fact passionately anti-Democrat, because she hates Social Security more than she hates Jesus. *laugh*![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
