Why should I vote Democrat?

[Richard]

Suppose I am 33.  I'm married with 3 kids.  I work for $70,000 a year and hope to make $100,000 by the time I'm 40.  My wife works for $40,000 [part time].  All of us are healthy, get enough exercise, and don't need chronic medication.  I work in the finance industry and my wife in the health care industry.  My kids go to private school because the public schools in the area are very poor.  Because of this, money is rather tight.

In GENERAL, why should we vote Democrat?  What do the Democrats have to offer us, for our life?  How will it make our lives easier and better?  How will they improve our community?



Rule 1: Answers may NOT include the word "Republican" or "Bush" or any reference to other parties.  This isn't about other parties; this is about the Democrat party.

Rule 2: Answers may not be in the form of what you are not.  One does not define oneself by saying what you're not; rather, you state what you are.

Rule 3: No bloviating.  Keep it simple.

[opebo]

The primary reason is economic: Because you and your wife are workers, and therefore incredibly vulnerable.  You need State assistance or your meager lifestyle will inevitably buffeted by the market (in other words you will be replaced by cheaper labour, benefiting the owners).  Your good health will inevitably depart, very soon.  Age, disease, and death are inevitable, and your feeble salable 'skills' are pathetically ephemeral.  You should vote for a generous welfare state, high minimum wages, unionization, redistribution, and tax-paid health care simply because you and yours will almost certainly need them at some point.

Also, one should note that you are already a very atypically well paid worker - this means two things.  1) it is easier for you to decieve yourself that you will not be effected by the market in the same way as your brethren below you, and 2) there is an even greater incentive for the owners to eliminate or replace you!

As a side issue, your children may die in back alley abortions if you don't vote Democrat, and of course your personal freedoms will be slowly curtailed by the religious.  But given that you're already dumb enough to marry and reproduce, you may enjoy that, and even take pleasure in the fact that others will be denied fun.  Lastly, by voting Democrat you would reduce the likelyhood of your offspring being killed in pointless wars, and of you being killed in retaliatory 'terrorist' attacks.

[Everett]

There's no reason for you to. End of story.

[dazzleman]

There's no reason for you to. End of story.

[Cashcow]

If you vote solely on economic issues, you probably have no reason to.

[MODU]

This is why you SHOULDN'T vote Democratic (typical gloom and doom scenario listed:

The primary reason is economic: Because you and your wife are workers, and therefore incredibly vulnerable.  You need State assistance or your meager lifestyle will inevitably buffeted by the market (in other words you will be replaced by cheaper labour, benefiting the owners). 

[Moooooo]

No reason, but most Americans are not as fortunate as you and your family.  110,000 dollar a year household income?  sh**t, where I come from, your rich.

[A18]

There's no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

[jokerman]

There's no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Unless you're not a CEO.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

[jokerman]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

We screw over the richest 0.1%, which includes some of our supporters like Warren Buffett and George Soros. Got a problem with that?

[jokerman]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

Without the government, the ultra-rich will develope and aristocracy, and class mobility will dimish heavily.  The poor will be born poor and have naught the ability to move up.  Neutrality is in itself plutocracy.

[TeePee4Prez]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

We screw over the richest 0.1%, which includes some of our supporters like Warren Buffett and George Soros. Got a problem with that?

Apparently they don't mind!  I do think there should be another tax bracket between $300,000-$1,000,000 though.  It's well-off, but not super wealthy like it once was.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

Without the government, the ultra-rich will develope and aristocracy, and class mobility will dimish heavily.  The poor will be born poor and have naught the ability to move up.  Neutrality is in itself plutocracy.

Plutocracy is rule by the rich. Class mobility is irrelevant to plutocracy.

Government does not give people the ability to move up, nor does non-intervention make anyone else more likely to be born 'poor.'

[jokerman]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

Without the government, the ultra-rich will develope and aristocracy, and class mobility will dimish heavily.  The poor will be born poor and have naught the ability to move up.  Neutrality is in itself plutocracy.

Plutocracy is rule by the rich. Class mobility is irrelevant to plutocracy.

Government does not give people the ability to move up, nor does non-intervention make anyone else more likely to be born 'poor.'

Yes is does.  Government can provide the ability to bring people up in so many ways.  We can provide quality education, which is a huge influence on future salary.  We can provide free child care for single mothers, so they can go out and get a job.  We can provide healthcare to working families, so they don't have the incentive to quit their job and draw welfare and medicare, and so also we prevent diseases early on so they don't become worse and cause that person to be a drain on society.

[Richard]

This question was aimed at Democrats for most part... I wouldn't expect Republicans or Libertarians to give me a good answer.

Any other Democrats want to give a go?

And Nick, this is just a hypothetical situation.  I'm not drawing $70K   I'm just anxious for a Democrat to tell me what exactly will they provide me if I support them.  What is the appeal to vote for them?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because the Democrats won't impose a theocracy.

[Richard]

Because the Democrats won't impose a theocracy.

Neither will the Republicans; besides, if they do, it wouldn't concern me really.

[dazzleman]

Because the Democrats won't impose a theocracy.

Yes they will; it will just have a different set of beliefs, and will be called something different.  What do you think political correctness is?

[Richard]

Because the Democrats won't impose a theocracy.

Yes they will; it will just have a different set of beliefs, and will be called something different.  What do you think political correctness is?

Thats true.  A theocracy of atheism, where it would be illegal to even speak the name of God in a public place that is not a church.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

Without the government, the ultra-rich will develope and aristocracy, and class mobility will dimish heavily.  The poor will be born poor and have naught the ability to move up.  Neutrality is in itself plutocracy.

Plutocracy is rule by the rich. Class mobility is irrelevant to plutocracy.

Government does not give people the ability to move up, nor does non-intervention make anyone else more likely to be born 'poor.'

Yes is does.  Government can provide the ability to bring people up in so many ways.  We can provide quality education, which is a huge influence on future salary.  We can provide free child care for single mothers, so they can go out and get a job.  We can provide healthcare to working families, so they don't have the incentive to quit their job and draw welfare and medicare, and so also we prevent diseases early on so they don't become worse and cause that person to be a drain on society.

That's not giving them the ability to move up. That's just moving them up.

What you have described is absolutely sick, and is the very definition of screwing people over. Doing nothing does not screw anyone over. That's why it's nothing.

[dazzleman]

Yes is does.  Government can provide the ability to bring people up in so many ways.  We can provide quality education, which is a huge influence on future salary.  We can provide free child care for single mothers, so they can go out and get a job.  We can provide healthcare to working families, so they don't have the incentive to quit their job and draw welfare and medicare, and so also we prevent diseases early on so they don't become worse and cause that person to be a drain on society.

Nobody can really "provide" an education to another person.  Good schools only exist in communities where education is valued, and do not exist where it is not valued.  Having said that, I support an escape option (vouchers) for those stuck in communities with poor schools, so they at least have the opportunity for a decent education.

As far as free daycare goes, where do you draw the line?  Why should single mothers get for free what married working mothers have to pay for?  Why should society be forced to subsidize individual choices that are bad for society in any case?  We have already heavily subsidized single parenthood, and the results have been catastrophic.

I realize your intentions are good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Not only would there have to be a very high tax rate to support your proposals, but they would not have the positive effects that you think they would, in my opinion.

[bgwah]

Because the Democrats are the main alternative to the party of pure evil and corruption.

They are far from perfect, but you have no decent alternative.

Vote Democrat to prevent the ultimate destruction of America and freedom.