Meet the Poor Republicans

NY Times ^ | May 15, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

[neverdem]

Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting.

The Pew data demonstrated that people at the top of the income scale are divided into stable, polar camps. There are the educated-class liberals - antiwar, pro-choice, anti-tax cuts - who make up about 19 percent of the electorate, according to Pew. And there are business-class conservatives - pro-war, pro-life, pro-tax cut - who make up 11 percent of voters.

These affluent people are pretty well represented by their parties, are not internally conflicted and are pretty much stuck in their ways.

But poorer voters are not like that. They're much more internally conflicted and not represented well by any party. You've got poor Republicans (over 10 percent of voters) who are hawkish on foreign policy and socially conservative, but like government programs and oppose tax cuts. You've got poor Democrats who oppose the war and tax cuts, but are socially conservative and hate immigration. These less-educated voters are more cross-pressured and more independent than educated voters. If you're looking for creative tension, for instability, for a new political movement, the lower middle class is probably where it's going to emerge.

Already, we've seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P. George Bush won the white working class by 23 percentage points in this past election. Many people have wondered why so many lower-middle-class waitresses in Kansas and Hispanic warehouse workers in Texas now call themselves Republicans. The Pew data provide an answer: they agree with Horatio Alger.

These working-class folk like the G.O.P.'s social and foreign policies, but the big difference between poor Republicans and poor Democrats is that the former believe that individuals can make it on their own with hard work and good character.

According to the Pew study, 76 percent of poor Republicans believe most people can get ahead with hard work. Only 14 percent of poor Democrats believe that. Poor Republicans haven't made it yet, but they embrace what they take to be the Republican economic vision - that it is in their power to do so. Poor Democrats are more likely to believe they are in the grip of forces beyond their control.

The G.O.P. succeeds because it is seen as the party of optimistic individualism.

But when you look at how Republicans behave in office, you notice that they are often clueless when it comes to understanding the lower-class folks who put them there. They are good at responding to business-class types and social conservatives, but bad at responding to poor Republicans.

That's because on important issues, the poor Republicans differ from their richer brethren. Poor Republicans aspire to middle-class respectability, but they are suspicious of the rich and of big business. About 83 percent of poor Republicans say big business has too much power, according to Pew, compared with 26 percent of affluent Republicans. If the Ownership Society means owning a home, they're for it. If it means putting their retirement in the hands of Wall Street, they become queasy.

Remember, these Republicans are disproportionately young women with children. Nearly 70 percent have trouble paying their bills every month. They are optimistic about the future, but their fear of their lives falling apart stalks them at night.

Poorer Republicans support government programs that offer security, so long as they don't undermine the work ethic. Eighty percent believe government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt. Only 19 percent of affluent Republicans believe that.

President Bush has made a lot of traditional Republicans nervous with his big-government conservatism. He's increased the growth of nonsecurity domestic spending at a faster rate than Lyndon Johnson and twice as fast as Bill Clinton. But in so doing, he's probably laid down a welcome mat to precisely these poorer folks.

Even so, Republicans have barely thought about how to use government to offer practical encouragement to the would-be Horatio Alger heroes. They've barely explored their biggest growth market. If Republicans can't pass programs like KidSave, which would help poor families build assets for education or retirement, then Hillary Clinton, who is surprisingly popular with poor Republicans, will take their place.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

[Sam the Sham]

Or you might say, between joining Latin America and joining Europe. Bush's trade and immigration policies want to make us part of Latin America with an isolated, oblivious elite living behind fortified walls, a thoroughly corrupt political establishment that serves them, and rootless peons on the margin of survival. Democratic cultural policies want to make us part of Europe, godless, degenerate, and not saying boo without the approval of the UN or the "international community".

There is such an openning for a party that wants America to be America.

[Sam the Sham]

You pulled yourself up by your bootstrap and did it all by yourself. Except, of course, for all those federal student loans.

I rate societies like I rate machinery and weapons. If an average 19 year old can't be trained to become proficient in a weapon in six months, it's a bad weapon. If a car designed by the kids who got straight a's in high school is too overengineered to be maintained by the kids who spent high school cutting class to smoke dope under the bleachers
then its a bad car. If you have to be a genius and a hero to have a stable life in a society then its a bad society. If Joe Sixpack cannot find regular work, if people who work with their hands are on the edge of poverty, if that half of the labor force that is not college educated is under continual downwards mobility pressure from third world competition then its a bad society.

[sirthomasthemore]

Vb, In reply to your thoughtful post:

I am speaking to major corporations, multi nationals- not small business, sub S.

The majors are bi-political, and have no particular allegiance to the GOP or the American worker- By definition, their existence is framed by profit. To th extent they create jobs, it's not out of altruism- it's to enhance their profits; just as when they terminate those jobs, or farm them out to cheaper labor overseas, they do so to maximize profit.

If you work for one of these corporations, your taxes and FICO are automatically deducted from your paycheck. You pay. On the other hand, these multi nationals move operations and money overseas to avoid taxation.

It may be legal, but it's not right. As cited in my original post, Congress has just passed a law allowing drug companies "amnesty" to repatriate a net $81B from overseas holdings- a net 5% tax. The average American doesn't get "amnesty" from taxation, more likely, he'd find himself in Court. Nor does the average middle class American get a 5% tax rate.

GE, Walmart, Micrsoft, Wachovia, Bank of America, Merck ad infinitum, don't need tax breaks, subsidies or incentives to "create jobs". They do so by their very nature, to remain competitive and enhance profits.
To the extent they do not, they die a capitalistic death, and a more fit corporations will rise to take their place.

[Destro]

Ditch the homosexual and abortion agendas and Democrats will win in landslides - especially after the Republicans in power under Bush have shown that their fiscal conservativisim was a lie. Both parties in power are for big govt so the issues fall under social lines for the voters.

[x]

Pew's study is pretty condescending to poorer voters. You can see a parallel between what Brooks and Pew rather smugly label "low income" Republicans and Democrats. People followed FDR and his Democrats for largely economic reasons. When the Democrats adopted a radical cultural agenda plenty of old New Deal Democrats felt alienated and eventually left the party.

Many Republicans signed on to fight liberal plans for changing the economy and the culture. When it comes to plans of their own party to change things, some aren't so enthusiastic about it. It's not the transformation of society according to a plan to maximize some value, but security, order and continuity that they value.

That doesn't mean that they don't care about freedom, just that freedom is defined in terms of what exists now, rather than in terms of what might be. People who have the same response to attempts of the left to change things don't necessarily agree with each other when it comes to planned changes from the right.

You may have seen the four quadrant analysis of ideologies, also called the Nolan chart:

American analysts don't know what to do with people in that lower quadrant, who don't passionately seek liberty or equality, but looks for security and stability first. So they get labeled "authoritarian" or "populist" or "lower income."

But it's a valid political position that shouldn't simply be put on the sidelines. It may include some nasty political tendencies. It isn't confined to them, though. "Traditionalist" or "communitarian" have been suggested as alternative labels.

I don't suggest that these voters are "authoritarian" or "communitarian," just that American analysts don't know what to do with voters who don't fit into a simple left-right analysis. Libertarians have been able to break out of that to some degree, but other groups haven't.

But it's not clear that "low-income Republicans" or "pro-government Republicans" are behind administration policies. It looks more like President Bush tried to win voters in the center and Pew has found a label to slap on some of the voters he got.

[RepublicMan4U]

"There is such a cryin need for a party that is nationalist economically and conservative on cultural values."

I had kind of thought this is what the Constitution Party was, but in terms of a constituency, I've notice that half of FR spouts the RFLMAO chatroom cliche' everytime they are even mentioned. No, I think most of the working class are still drinking the Koolade of both major parties.

[familyop]

David Brooks wrote, with his usual male feminist dishonesty:
"Remember, these Republicans are disproportionately young women with children."

But the Pew Report said:
"This relatively young, predominantly female group is under substantial financial pressure, but most feel it is within their power to get ahead. This group also is highly concentrated in the South, and, of the three core Republican groups, had the lowest turnout in the 2004 election."

Brooks is a closet Hillary Democrat if he's not "outed," yet.

[DameAutour]

Well, I'm poor. But my wealth and income have little effect on my principles and views.

[familyop]

After having looked through the Pew poll, I see that almost all of the categories studied are people who lean to the left. And the methodology is hardly documented but obviously devised for a skew.

In other words, the Pew poll is subjective, pro-Democrat garbage.

[Melas]

Sam, that was so well said that I intend to paraphrase it, and use it over and over again in conversations and in writing. That's really the most eloquent and succinct statement on the subject I've read to date.

[Melas]

So what is your solution? Use the power of the government to level the playing field?

Sadly, I don't have all the solutions. However, I know the solution doesn't involve current corporate thinking where we have the CEO of HP saying that it's a global company and that Americans don't have a right to jobs. I can say with certainty that the solution isn't so-called American companies with no stake in America.

[Melas]

Tom Tancredo, I support him, he seems to be my personal favorite but the Republican Establishment would doom him.

Your comments about the Minuteman movement being a bluecollar movement were dead on. However, Tancredo is really a one note wonder. Agree with him or not, everyone with a shred of intellectual honesty has to admit that immigration is pretty much his sole issue. That's not nearly enough to carry a presidential campaign.

[Melas]

Definition of poverty in America? 2-3 TV's

Cable or satellite TV

Couple of cars that run

Housing

Heat/AC

All the best junk food money can buy

The sad part is you really believe that. In stark contrast to you cheery little picture, I've actually loaned money to a neighbor so she could pay the co-pay when she took her kid to the doctor. That's the reality of many working class Americans.

[Sam the Sham]

What problem do you have with that ?

Single mothers are under intense economic and cultural pressure. They have marginal jobs that compete ferociously with outsourcing and illegal immigrant labor. And they need a culture which will not subvert their efforts to keep their children away from gangs and drugs and promiscuity. They are one or two paychecks away from being on the street and they can barely control their children.

[Nowhere Man]

Here is my Nolan Chart, I took the test a while back:



I remember discussing this in high school (1985 - twenty years, has it been that long?) political science about how the left-right political spectrum doesn't explain everything so we came up with a similar chart like the Nolan one. I mean again, using me as an example, I'm very pro-NRA, pro-life, pro-Judeo-Christian, pro-military, support the war on terror, abd pro-family but I'm more economically moderate, I do support the idea of a welfare state as long as it is a hand up not a hand out and to provide a safety net while fine tuning it to make it run more efficient and to not encourage laziness instead to provide an avenue to learn a skill and responsibilty so they can be productive members of society. I think NASA should be expanded although I encourage private ventures too. Single payer healthcare I'm willing to give some thought as long as we have safeguards to where people are not "Schiavoed" or can get care when they need it, my jury is still out on that one but I lean in favor if those conditions are met. I do support President Bush on Social Security reform though. I'm opposed to the backruptcy reform and I think there should by no death-tax on estates.

I guess I'm a prime guinea pig for your case. B-D

I think where Pew got it wrong with me is I do follow current events and I do vote often.

[Sam the Sham]

Thanks.

You and I have both seen how hard it is for working people. How they are under incredibly intense economic and cultural pressure trying to keep their heads above water and trying to control their children in the midst of a culture that subverts the values they want to teach their children. The only values that will enable them to have a better life.

If you want your children to have a better future you have to teach them to ignore what their peers and the popular culture tell them. Children from upper and upper middle class families who insulated from the street and groomed for college from birth understand this. Children who grow up in a world of meth and gangs and hanging out don't.

[listenhillary]

Try being poor in Africa. See if you wouldn't prefer being poor in America.

[listenhillary]

I travel a bit in Missouri. I see people living in these trailers that look like crud, but every one of them has a satellite dish and some have $30,000 pickups in the dirt driveway.

I can't explain it.

[Melas]

Try being poor in Africa. See if you wouldn't prefer being poor in America.

While that may be true, you're essentially saying, "If you think being deaf is bad, try being blind." The mere fact that poverty in Africa is worse, doesn't diminish the struggles that working class Americans endure. Anyone who thinks things have been getting better for working class Americans is either blind or stupid. In my own lifetime, we've gone from a society where a single wage earner, in a menial position could support a family, to a society where a double income family isn't meeting that same mark.

[Sam the Sham]

You embody precisely the kind of smugness that poor Republicans have come to expect from pro-business rich Republicans. Like a guy who sees a panhandler and shrugs, "He probably makes more than I do."

It is the smugness of a party heading for a fall.

[oldbrowser]

In a nutshell that is the difference between capitalism and communism.

[Nowhere Man]

While that may be true, you're essentially saying, "If you think being deaf is bad, try being blind." The mere fact that poverty in Africa is worse, doesn't diminish the struggles that working class Americans endure. Anyone who thinks things have been getting better for working class Americans is either blind or stupid. In my own lifetime, we've gone from a society where a single wage earner, in a menial position could support a family, to a society where a double income family isn't meeting that same mark.

What passes for poor in this country is different than what passes for poor in Africa. if we take African rules, the poor in this country are a lot better off than even some who would pass for a "middle class" in Africa. Still by our standards, even the "rich poor" that would be rich in Africa would still be poor here. Also don't forget history too, in many cases, the poor have a lot more than even Queen Victoria had in many cases, but if we substitute 2005 US standards for the 1890-1900 Queen Victorian standard, they would be still be poor. So in short, what you say is correct and it is generally a cop-out to bring up the poor here in America are doing fine.

I think weh ave many factors here that are not seen. First off, the welfare system wants to keep them on the "plantation," that is wrong, it should be geared to be a hand up not a hand out, to encourage the learn of a trade or skill as well as responsibility along with stopping our jobs from leaving. True, some of the blame is on the recipients themselves for being lazy and slothful but they are not totally to blame, it is sort of like the snake chasing it's tail where cause and effect build up on each other into a downward spiral. Without teaching responsibility and the idea of learning a skill/trade, these people have become irresponsible with spending what little they have. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one and it is a shame that good people get caught up in this.

[Nowhere Man]

You embody precisely the kind of smugness that poor Republicans have come to expect from pro-business rich Republicans. Like a guy who sees a panhandler and shrugs, "He probably makes more than I do."

It is the smugness of a party heading for a fall.

In some ways, this is our version of the Democrat's "barking moonbat" problem or better yet, a sort of reverse class warfare.

[Sam the Sham]

A lot of poorer Republicans are ex New Deal Democrats and retain the distrust of "fat cats".

[goosie]

I believe the Pew people call that "consensus." I could tell stories.

[x]

It has something to do with theory and practice. A lot of people who might be theoretically for tort reform or bankruptcy reform are concerned about the powerful economic interests that would influence any changes that Congress would make in the real world. It's similar with things like welfare and health care. People are open to free market reforms, but are concerned about losing what's available to them if things go sour, and mistrustful of what the laws will look like after the lobbyists get through with them.

In general, ideologies are by definition developed by people who value theory more than practical considerations. So the experts have a hard time figuring out the positions that people take in the real world. But any change has to overcome a lot of objections before it gets approved. It's part of the process and it prevents government from acting too rashly.

[ClearCase_guy]

I didn't read any arrogance and/or condescension in this article. What are you referring to?

No condescension? The author sees two main groups:

There are the educated-class liberals And there are business-class conservatives

Smart people, the ones with an education, are Liberal. The rest of us (the uneducated) are conservative. At least, this dichotomy is true for the Rich, as far as the author can see. It’s a little different for the poor:

These less-educated voters are more cross-pressured and more independent than educated voters. Already, we've seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P.

The gains that the GOP has made in recent years is because uneducated poor people are suckered into voting Republicans. You wouldn’t catch educated people doing that!! And how does the Republican party repay these voters?

But when you look at how Republicans behave in office, you notice that they are often clueless when it comes to understanding the lower-class folks who put them there.

Clueless Republicans. Uneducated and not-too-bright. Whether they are the ones running the party, or just the ones suckered into voting for the party, those Republicans are very different from the Educated Liberals!

And you see no arrogance in this?

[RobFromGa]

The main problem with this article is it believes that the income levels are fixed over time. Many of the so-called "poor" Republicans are hard-working folk who have every intention of getting to the "rich" Republican threshhold. The "poor" Democrats do not believe in the AMerican dream and have no such aspirations.

America is really three groups in my opinion:

1. The elite moneyed class, mainly liberals, never earned a dime on hard work, they got theirs through privelege (a small numer of people). College professors who are spared the rigors of real accountable work also fall in this class.

2. The downtrodden "poor" who have given up- mostly Democrats. Includes criminals and minorities convinced of their oppressed state.

3. Then there is the rest of us, the people who work hard to get ahead. We actually like America and believe that it is the greatest place and time in the history of the world. We are mostly Republican, but there are some of us that are Democrat because they have been conditioned by the MSM and government skools that there are really different classes of people. If the MSM was even slightly fair, these people would all be pro tax-cut fiscal conservatives.

[listenhillary]

The sad part is you really believe that. In stark contrast to you cheery little picture, I've actually loaned money to a neighbor so she could pay the co-pay when she took her kid to the doctor. That's the reality of many working class Americans

Your drawing conclusions from one example and saying that it applies to every working class American. That was a kind gesture of you to pay the co-pay for your neighbor. No one held a gun to your head to do it did they? That is what the government does when it takes money from you and redistributes that wealth. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and real estate/property taxes.

My wife and I both worked for minimum wage when we started working @ $2.85 an hour. Had food, housing, a car, took vacations and put away money for a down payment on a house. It took 7 years to save enough money, but we did it.

Did we eat fillet mignon and stay at the Hilton? We sure didn't. Did we have cable TV and buy precooked meals? Nope.

How easy do we want to make life for the working poor? Don't we want them to become the working middle class?

I've always felt giving too much assistance is much like a mother refusing to let her baby learn how to walk. How compassionate is that?

[listenhillary]

You embody precisely the kind of smugness that poor Republicans have come to expect from pro-business rich Republicans.

You are on Free Republic, right?

Welcome to Free Republic! Free Republic is the premiere online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

[Melas]

How easy do we want to make life for the working poor? Don't we want them to become the working middle class?

That sentence there exemplifies where we part company. I don't think anyone should be working poor, and I don't believe that one should have to move up to the middle class in order to provide adequately for themselves. My welfare gripes have always concerned the non-producers. I think it's a shame when the producers are going begging as well.

[Melas]

Sam isn't lacking in conservatism. Conservatism isn't now, nor has it every been marked by short-sightedness. Unfortunately, in this case, you seem to insist on a "see no evil" litmus test when it comes to this issue.

[wisdomcube]

Such is the system in theory. I suggest you read this from William F. Buckley. Now, say whatever you want about his writing style, if there is one person on Earth who can't properly be called "liberal" it's him.
The reality is, with many CEOs more tax breaks doesn't mean more investment just more money for them. Look at Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco who was throwing a Roman themed party for his second wife that included a $250,000 apperance of Jimmy Buffet and an ice scuplture of David that pissed vodka (!) thanks to millions he pillaged from his own company. Not to mention what gluttons like Kenneth Lay stole, literally at the expense of their workers' pension funds.
Now, don't misinterpt me as a socialist loony. I'm a strong believer in capitalism and despise socialism especially when I see how the former benefited and the latter squashed the land of my parents' birth (India). Where I differ from many lefties is that I hardly think that re-distribution of wealth or "univeral health care" is in order. We should all get what we EARN. Not more but certainly not less. That's what I always thought free markets were all about, one of the reasons I joined the Republican party in the first place.
What really pisses me off is that this problem stems from the supposedly free market Republican Congress giving endless benefits and tax breaks to huge corporations (while smaller companies and their employees get the squeeze) and CEOs and other bigshots giving themselves (or having their boards give them) huge bonuses and income hikes at the expense of their workers, its no wonder the belt is tightening.
There is a difference between free markets and greed. Thanks to Republicans we're getting more of the latter and we all get the ass end of the deal. That's lousy capitalism and a betrayal of the ideals I thought I was buying into when I joined the Republicans.

[Torie]

One of my favorite gleaming toys of psephology is that the county that voted with the highest percentage for Nixon in 1960 was also the poorest - Jackson County, Kentucky - 90.4% Nixon.

[Sam the Sham]

You have blundered.

He distinguishes two groups. Highly educated pro-business Republicans and blue collar social conservative Republicans. Basically, country club Republicans vs social conservative NASCAR Republicans.

[A. Pole]

What passes for poor in this country is different than what passes for poor in Africa. if we take African rules, the poor in this country are a lot better off than even some who would pass for a "middle class" in Africa. Still by our standards, even the "rich poor" that would be rich in Africa would still be poor here.

That poverty is relative it does not change that it is real. Not being able to have a car in many countries does not mean poverty. In USA having a car can be a necessity. You can be fine and happy in some parts of the world without heating system - in Canada or Russia you will die without it.

You are poor if you cannot afford necessities and necessities depend on the country, climate, cultural norms etc ...

$100 goes much longer way in Central Africa, than in USA.

[TypeZoNegative]

"If Republicans can't pass programs like KidSave, which would help poor families build assets for education or retirement"

Can't they do it by themselves?

And pretty much what I get from this article is that how moral poor people who believe in hard work, investment and self betterment are attracted to a party that encourages the same. Notice how the people that want to blame somebody else for their troubles are Demon-rats.

[neverdem]

"If Republicans can't pass programs like KidSave, which would help poor families build assets for education or retirement"

Can't they do it by themselves?

Apparently not, as the last time I read it, we have all time high consumer and government debt. Do you need a link?

[BlackElk]

I disagree with you on immigration strongly. I remember mixing it up with you in the past and saying that yiour screen name was well chosen. While still disagreeing with you strongly on immigration, I must say that I apologize for the tone of my previous criticisms.

Your contributions on this thread are masterful and ought to be mandatory reading. My dad worked in a cardboard factory and my mother in a garment factory. My experience in their household tells me you are right on target on populism, Reagan Democrats and the working/lower middle class.

From a former critic, keep up the great work.

[listenhillary]

If it weren't for the "Rich Republicans" we'd all be pissing and moaning about President Kerry right now.

How far do you want to go to ease the life of the working poor? Guaranteed housing provided by the government? Oh wait, we already do that it's called section 8 housing. Same with health care, we already do that. I would say that giving too much assistance is like a child that refuses to let her child learn how to walk. It's not compassion, it's child abuse.

I hate corporate welfare as much as anyone, the way to get rid of is is to take the life or death decisions that politicians have over the wealthy and the business owners by returning to a government limited by the constitution. Regulating interstate commerce was not a blank check to punish and reward your friends and enemies with favorable or confiscatory tax laws and regulations.

FDR bought the votes of the farmers, bought the vote of the union members, bought the votes of the blacks by punishing the productive. His theft lead to the substitution of individualism for dependence on the government and specifically dependence on the Democrats for sustenance. Second term, his plans were well in place asking Republicans "Why are you for starving the farmer and the working man?" In 1942 FDR attempted to raise the income tax to 99.5% of all income over $25,000. It didn't pass, so he did an executive order setting the rate to 100% over $25,000. I can see that you would be jumping for joy at this populist executive order.

If you take away the incentive to produce, you will succeed more than likely. This is what you want, right?

[ninenot]

FWIW, BE, Sam always posts well-thought out positions.

On the immigration question, Sam has identified (correctly, IMHO) part of the problem as wage-slavery (you recall Belloc's Servile State.)

IIRC, in essence, Sam's hypothesis is that by and large the Fortune 500 is decidedly neutral on the issue because they can easily substitute illegals at $6.25/hour for the native workers at $8.50.

Take a look at any meat-processor.

[ninenot]

Further, I think the Pew analysis misses a very significant breakdown category--faith.

My suspicion is that we are looking at another way to phrase the "socially conservative/economically liberal" position of not only genuine Conservatism, but genuine Christianity.

Madison Avenue has long been a target of thinking Catholics, some at extremely high levels in the Church. Consumerism/materialism debilitates society.

A high-end men's clothing retailer in Milwaukee is now running radio ads which address the economic situation up here--it's mixed--by proposing the solution of BUY, BUY, BUY as "the American way" to fix the economy.

I can't decide if the commercials are tongue-in-cheek...

[InterceptPoint]

I know that Free Republic is a forum to discuss the news but, given the fact that there is a lot of news out there, isn't it time to just start ignoring the garbage & propaganda put out by the NYT. IMHO, it just isn't newsworthy anymore. Their reputation is deservedly in the tank and will stay there. You really can't trust anything they print any longer. So we are really just commenting on fiction. Seems a waste to me.

[from occupied ga]

Why would poor republicans oppose tax cuts. Even if the cuts include the most wealthy, why does this writer think poor republicans oppose?

Consider the source.

NY Times ^ | May 15, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

Lies, lies, half truths, opinions stated and facts and more lies. This is what you get in the old grey whore. Why anyone believe anything published in this pompous fishwrapper?

[A. Pole]

I looked at your home page and I decided to buy a bottle of Jose Cuervo so will drink to your health :)

[A. Pole]

there's a whole lot of rich folks that don't work for their money [...] Let's tax unearned income, and substantially cut down on taxes for earned income. Just makes sense. (IF we assume that taxes are inevitable. Otherwise, let's not tax anyone)

Freemarketeers have no answer for this argument.