It’s possible, however unlikely, that people actually recognize that a rich guy is their boss, and like it or not–if that rich guy gets squeezed, he’s likely to lay people off. Not to mention the fact that the top 1% actually pays 99% of the taxes.
Phil Mickelson says that he effectively pays a 75% marginal tax rate. Without doing the math, I’d say that’s probably true. He pays ~45% federal income tax, +13.3% California income tax, + sales taxes, +property tax, +CA business income and franchise taxes, +gasoline taxes, + cigarette/alcohol taxes, + hotel taxes, etc…
(However, if Phil is really hurting, I’ll trade my monetary problems for his. Somehow I don’t think he’ll take the trade, though.)
I don’t mind paying taxes as much as I mind how those taxes are used. City councils are the worst. Often you have people that are literally unemployable outside of politics looking to keep a job. The monetary incentive is on reelection…I’d rather have someone who is adicited to the power/limelight than that.
PA has a meaningful election with Corbett vs. Wolf. I’m thinkinig Wolf here…Corbett was just so bad and divisive.
That is what the talking heads of the democratic party will tell you, but democrats are just as much in bed with the 1% as are republicans. The primary difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats have figured out that the vast majority of voters are too lazy/stupid to actually look into what a candidate has actually done and they just tell “the people” that they’re governing for them and the people buy it. Republicans haven’t figured that out yet.
The two Canadians that have posted here would both likely vote Republican (myself and krazy, per his comment above), if we were American. My “socialism,” as described by others in other threads, is very misunderstood. As are Canadians. Remember that a conservative government has been in power here for nearly a decade, and held 49% of the popular vote outside of the true socialist (oil sands funded) paradise of Quebec and Eastern Canada. Compare that to 26% support for the socialists, ex-Quebec. Canadians are by nature pragmatic fiscal conservatives. Sure we don’t share Republican views on abortion or gay rights, but you’ll find more agreement with low taxes + small business support here than you’d think. If the GOP dropped the caveman social values, I’d say I’d be 100% onboard with their agenda. But their social value agenda is absolutely insane in the modern world. I think they alienate a big chunk of folks with that, folks that would otherwise vote GOP. Its so weird, as an outsider, to see one party be libertarian towards guns and business, but anti-freedom when it comes to consenting adult behaviour, and another party support gay rights but want to limit property and economic freedom. Really bizarre that in a country that stresses liberty that there really isn’t a major party with true libertarian values.
That’s a good knock on GOP’s anti-gay marriage stance, but being pro-life is somehow anti-freedom? That’s what I don’t understand. For statists who are all about protecting minorities and the oppressed, I’m not sure why the freedom (to live) of the weakest and most vulnerable should be ignored.
Given that Canada spends more as a percentage of GDP than does the US (30% vs 25%), I would not hesitate to say that Canadians overall are less fiscally conservative than US people.
The Canadians on this forum are probably more fiscally conservative than most Canadians, since this is a forum that focuses on finance topics and Indian celebrities.
The other possibility is that Canada is just widely too socialist in terms of fiscal policy. Thus, many Canadians would favor an optimal point to the right of the current point. The US, on the other hand, could be too far to the right in terms of fiscal policy, thus its gradual move to the left. This scenario is contingent on the optimal point being in between the Canada and the US, and probably is not compatible with trends in Canadian government spending.
^ not many tory Canadians could put aside the GOP’s terrible social stance in favour of their fiscal conservatism. the vast vast majority of tory Canadians are anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-universal health care, pro-sexual freedom and gender choice. i don’t think many tories would vote for the GOP unless they completely did a 180 in terms of their social stance. i mean, are you really going to put aside all of your truly important beliefs and standing for what is right (liberty, freedom, equality) for a slightly lower tax rate? standing up for liberty, freedom and equality is how we identify ourselves as Canadians on a personal level and on the world stage. my bet is that upwards of 90% of Canadians would vote for the Democrats if we had to vote on U.S. politics. U.S. Republican annexers of Canada be warned. further, Canadian demographics (particularly income, ethnicity, religion, things that drive which party you vote for) mirror that of traditionally Democratic states.
I’ll avoid this bomb, but I do agree with your characterisation here. Being pro-life is not anti-freedom. The GOP remains strongly anti-freedom on several other fronts though. And to Ohai on expenditures to GDP: that’s not always the full story. Canada funds health insurance out of that amount, yet the US funds this privately (though now in most cases you are compelled to have such insurance). If you added costs that you, by law, must incur, I bet the GDP numbers are more comparable. That said, the US does spend more on military and Canada more on education, for example, so there are differences there (most Canadians would probably be in favour of greater military expenditures, though). Keeping to topic though: if the GOP adopted a more libertarian stance, I bet they’d be significantly more electable in many areas. Sometimes you need to give a little to win the bigger battle.
geo, i’m positive your clearly tainted Albertan view is not representative of Canadians. I don’t know one Ontarian who wants more military spending. I’d imagine a supermajority of BCers, Quebecois and Maritimers would feel the same. That’s 82% of the population who are notorious for being against greater military spending. Canada is not Alberta. Also, are Albertans really gun toting warmongers?
^ You don’t think Canadians support having new jets, icebreakers and coastal defense ships? I don’t think Canadians in general support war, but I do think folks recognise the importance of having decent tech for our national defense.
^ i’d agree that most would be okay with a reallocation of military spending to homeland security and from war machines to be used in foreign lands but i’m positive very few would vote yes to adding to military spending outright. considering that the only somewhat pro-military party (tories) had only 40% of the vote last round and many tory voters are anti-military or are at least neutral on militiary spending, i’d fathom to guess that 2/3rds of Canadians would directly vote against an increase in military spending. you may see greater support if there was a vote on whether to partake in WW3 or stop some terrible foreign genocide or something but to increase spending for the sake of it, no chance.
i think an increase in military spending would fall far behind Canadians’ wish for greater education spending, health care spending, social program spending, tax relief, etc, etc. i think military spending is probably at the very bottom of the list for 99.999% of Canadians and thus would be tough to ever increase.
^ The vast majority of Canadians supported action against ISIS. That requires jets. The F-18s won’t work for these missions forever. And the homeland security aspect, isolationism, is a profoundly Republican value. Anyways, we are way off topic.
that’s my point. Canadians will support action in specific situations but will never stand for military spending just for the sake of it. we could go back and forth on this for years as there’s little hard data so what’s the point.
to our forum viewers in America, thanks for watching this off-topic discussion brought to you by the friendly people at the CBC. now it’s back to the discussion of U.S. politics on Fox News! USA! USA!
This gets to the true problem with the GOP. The vast majority of moderate (read sane) republicans are too lazy to vote in primaries, while the far right wing of the party (read whackos) comes out in force in the primaries. As a result, the GOP often puts forward candidates who are far too conservative for the general election.
No, he is correct. Consider the group of ultra conservatives that Romney was running against during the primaries. It is a two layered problem. To win the GOP primary, the candidate must cater to the center of the Republican party, which is skewed right by the Tea Party and other extreme people. However, to win the Presidential primary, the candidate must cater to the center of the general population, which is obviously more to the left than the GOP center. Some Republican strategists, such as Karl Rove, wrote about this problem specifically.
Romney compromised by choosing Paul Ryan, a right winger, as his running mate, and by making certain statements regarding social issues (abortion, for instance), which are out of character, based on his policy history. While this helped his image among right wing voters, this alienated moderate voters in the Presidential election. This might have even cost him the election, ultimately.
^ Very dumb analysis. There are a lot of socially-conservative Americans who vote. Trying to out-Democrat Democrats on social issues is just going to lose the GOP a big chunk of their base, in exchange for the not-as-sizeable Canadian Tory vote.
Smart people who are fiscally-conservative but socially liberal understand that the “war on women” is a load of identity politics nonsense. What law, specifically, have Republicans been pushing that would outlaw condoms (as a Mark Udall ad has claimed in recent weeks)? Don’t be a moron–whether we have a huge government that taxes the economy to death is way more important than if my politician approves of my lifestyle.