5 ms·

I think that's correct. Anecdotally, my personal network in tech seems to side with Democrats for reason like environmental protection, global warming, gay mar

I think that's correct. Anecdotally, my personal network in tech seems to side with Democrats for reason like environmental protection, global warming, gay marriage, abortion, and olive branch foreign policy; not because of economic reasons like union support, wealth redistribution, or strengthened regulators.

jjoonathan 13y ago
Makes you wonder if the Republican party isn't intentionally taking the wedge-issue craziness to 11 only so that they can rebrand next election cycle and yank the mat out from under the Democrats. Given the effectiveness of Romney's rush-to-the-center in the 1st debate against Obama, the thought has to have crossed their minds. The timing (tossing last election to win the next one) makes sense because next election they won't be running against a relatively popular incumbent. They don't have anything to gain by doubling-down on the losing side of every social issue on the list -- their core demographic will vote R regardless -- but a pull-the-mat strategy could net them tons of wealthy individuals from the "socially liberal economically conservative" camp.
- refurb 13y ago
  I think the bigger issue is that each party caters to their fringe groups and then shifts to the middle when they are in office. GWB backed one of the biggest expansions of entitlement programs since LBJ (Medicare Part-D). Obama seems to have no problem ignoring the international community when it comes to using US force globally. The only thing that separates the two parties (when in office) are the issues that can keep them in office (e.g. the issue of abortion and guns is pretty evenly split in the US)
krschultz 13y ago
I agree to a large extent, but a lot of Democrats do support the healthcare reform which is one of the greatest wealth redistributions of our time. They may not explicitly call it a wealth redistribution, but the idea of making healthcare access available to people that can't currently afford it is a big redistribution.
- jacoblyles 13y ago
  Like most existing government programs, it's a wealth transfer from the young to the old. The program pays for the old and sick on the back of the comparatively more healthy and less wealthy younger workers. More supporting evidence that democracies tend to work in favor of the largest voting blocs rather than some abstract "public interest".
  - wwweston 13y ago
    > Like most existing government programs, it's a wealth transfer from the young to the old. It seems accurate to say that Medicare is as you describe -- we've more or less been socializing the costs of insuring the elderly, privatizing the risks/benefits of insuring the employable, and letting everybody else fend for themselves for a few decades. But it seems pretty tenuous specifically in the context of the recent PP/ACA legislation. The only arguable point is that by requiring people to join a risk pool, we're forcing them to subsidize the elderly... which we were already doing via a tax-supported medicare program. > The program pays for the old and sick on the back of the comparatively more healthy and less wealthy younger workers. Sure, in the same sense that any insurance program is. That is, there is no insurance program of any kind that isn't a "wealth transfer" to those who suffer from the insured-against event from those who don't. Though when talking about "young" and "old" in the context of a stable policy, this may not be a particularly important point. Most people are going to get a chance to be part of both.

jjoonathan 13y ago

Makes you wonder if the Republican party isn't intentionally taking the wedge-issue craziness to 11 only so that they can rebrand next election cycle and yank the mat out from under the Democrats. Given the effectiveness of Romney's rush-to-the-center in the 1st debate against Obama, the thought has to have crossed their minds. The timing (tossing last election to win the next one) makes sense because next election they won't be running against a relatively popular incumbent. They don't have anything to gain by doubling-down on the losing side of every social issue on the list -- their core demographic will vote R regardless -- but a pull-the-mat strategy could net them tons of wealthy individuals from the "socially liberal economically conservative" camp.

refurb 13y ago
I think the bigger issue is that each party caters to their fringe groups and then shifts to the middle when they are in office. GWB backed one of the biggest expansions of entitlement programs since LBJ (Medicare Part-D). Obama seems to have no problem ignoring the international community when it comes to using US force globally. The only thing that separates the two parties (when in office) are the issues that can keep them in office (e.g. the issue of abortion and guns is pretty evenly split in the US)

krschultz 13y ago

I agree to a large extent, but a lot of Democrats do support the healthcare reform which is one of the greatest wealth redistributions of our time. They may not explicitly call it a wealth redistribution, but the idea of making healthcare access available to people that can't currently afford it is a big redistribution.

jacoblyles 13y ago
Like most existing government programs, it's a wealth transfer from the young to the old. The program pays for the old and sick on the back of the comparatively more healthy and less wealthy younger workers. More supporting evidence that democracies tend to work in favor of the largest voting blocs rather than some abstract "public interest".
- wwweston 13y ago
  > Like most existing government programs, it's a wealth transfer from the young to the old. It seems accurate to say that Medicare is as you describe -- we've more or less been socializing the costs of insuring the elderly, privatizing the risks/benefits of insuring the employable, and letting everybody else fend for themselves for a few decades. But it seems pretty tenuous specifically in the context of the recent PP/ACA legislation. The only arguable point is that by requiring people to join a risk pool, we're forcing them to subsidize the elderly... which we were already doing via a tax-supported medicare program. > The program pays for the old and sick on the back of the comparatively more healthy and less wealthy younger workers. Sure, in the same sense that any insurance program is. That is, there is no insurance program of any kind that isn't a "wealth transfer" to those who suffer from the insured-against event from those who don't. Though when talking about "young" and "old" in the context of a stable policy, this may not be a particularly important point. Most people are going to get a chance to be part of both.